Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

Client Alert
February 1, 2021

This article was originally published in the Stark County Medical Society newsletter.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.

Most practitioners are familiar with the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is a specific statute that limits the time period in which a lawsuit can be filed which starts when the injury occurred or is discovered. In essence, it provides a limited period of time in which a claim can be filed, and if not filed in that period, denies the Claimant a chance to even assert a claim as if an event had occurred. In Ohio, the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is a one-year period which begins at the later of the termination of the patient-physician relationship or the patient discovers or should have discovered that an injury had occurred.

The second statute is the statute of repose.  Unlike the statute of limitations, which limits the time period in which to assert the claim, the statute of repose is focused on when the physician is relieved of any potential exposure for any conduct that arose prior to the cutoff date. In Ohio, the statute of repose for medical claims is four years. In other words, the claim must be filed within four years after the occurrence or omission of conduct which the Plaintiff claims was wrongful has actually occurred. The difference between the two is the statute of repose is a hard cutoff of claims as opposed to the statute of limitations which is triggered by discovery of the mistake.

The third statute is what is known as the savings statute. Under the savings statute, if a party timely files a claim for example, but that same lawsuit is later dismissed by the Plaintiff other than on the merits, the savings statute permits that Plaintiff refiling the lawsuit within one year effectively treating the renewed lawsuit as having been filed within the initial year even if the date of the refiling is after the end of the one year or four years. 

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not a party who had filed a claim within the four-year statute of repose could dismiss and refile the action within a year after the end of the four years, effectively making it a fifth year asserting the savings statute would apply.  

After carefully reviewing the history of prior court decisions and more importantly reviewing other provisions in Ohio law, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the statutes are clear that if a claim is not commenced and pursued within the four-year statute of repose, the claim is barred. The Court specifically found that the savings statute would not apply, and a Plaintiff could not file, dismiss and refile the claim. The Court also noted however that even within that interpretation there still remains two specific exemptions that may extend the time for filing. The first exception is if the injured party was a minor where the time periods begin when the minor turns 18, or second, if the patient should happen to be of “unsound mind” as the statute defines which would make that patient not able legally to make a determination for themselves if a claim existed or should have existed. 

The Court pointed out that the reason for the statute of repose was to give medical providers certainty with respect to the time in which a claim can be brought against them and a time after which they would be free from the fear of litigation. Based upon that underlying purpose, the Court concluded that the savings statute does not give the Plaintiff an additional year to refile a case. The Supreme Court further noted that there were other provisions in Ohio law where the state legislature had in fact been clear that the savings statute would be available to a party for the refiling of a claim. For example, other statutory provisions dealing with product liability claims specifically authorized the invocation of the savings statute whereas the claims for medical malpractice do not. The Court concluded that the savings statute does not extend for another year the time period in which a claim can be filed thereby putting a cap at a maximum of four years. The Court goes on to note that even though arguments had been asserted that public policy should permit an extension, the Court concluded that that is a matter to be addressed specifically by the legislature and that the Court itself would not create a new rule or rewrite the law period.

If you have any questions or would like to receive a copy of the Court’s Decision, please contact me, Scott P. Sandrock, at spsandrock@bmdllc.com or (330) 253-4367.

Scott P. SandrockHealth LawBMD Healthcare & Hospital LawStatutes of LimitationsOhio Supreme Court
Client Alert

Protections Under Federal and Ohio Law for Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property

November 17, 2021Most industrial/commercial property developers are generally aware of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), often also referred to as “Superfund”. CERCLA, a United Stated federal law administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was created, in part, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized that environmental cleanup could help promote reuse or redevelopment of contaminated, potentially contaminated, and formerly contaminated properties, helping revitalize communities that may have been adversely affected by the presence of the contaminated properties. Commercial property developers should be aware that CERCLA provides for some important liability limitations for landowners that own contaminated property impacted by materials hazardous to the environment. It can also assist with landowners concerned about the potential liabilities stemming from the presence of contamination to which they have not contributed. In particular, CERCLA provides important liability limitations for landowners that qualify as (1) bona fide prospective purchasers (BFPPS), (2) contiguous property owners, or (3) innocent landowners.Client Alert

Puerto Rico Is Open For Business

November 16, 2021Puerto Rico has the highest vaccination in the nation. More than 73% of the total population is fully vaccinated. The U.S. national average is just over 57%. The ports opened in June 2020 and San Juan held it first live concert this past summer. It is important to remember that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and there is no need for visas, the banking systems is almost identical to the mainland and the Island uses the U.S. postal service and U.S. dollar as its currency. There are thousands of flights from the U.S. to Puerto Rico daily and all main airlines fly to the Island.Client Alert

Ohio Medical Board Changes Telemedicine Rules

November 16, 2021A SCMS News Article by Scott Sandrock.Client Alert

The Rising Threat from Insiders – Get Your House in Order

November 16, 2021As its name implies, an ‘Insider Threat’ originates inside an organization. An ‘insider’ is any person who has or had authorized access to or knowledge of an organization’s resources, including personnel, facilities, information, equipment, networks, and systems. ‘Insider threat’ can manifest from malicious, complacent, negligent or unintentional acts that negatively affect the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the organization, its data, personnel, or facilities. Certainly, ‘Insider Threat’ can be an activity by a bad actor employee, but can also arise from an inadvertent or unknowing action inside an organization (such as an employee who unintentionally opens a phishing email or clicks on a malicious link).Client Alert

In Cybersecurity– A Good Offense is the Best Defense

November 16, 20212021 has been a watershed moment for cybersecurity incidents as cybercrime has become a frequent headline and cyber criminals have thrived on unsuspecting and/or unprepared businesses and institutions. For example, the Solar Winds attack exposed sensitive data from top companies like Microsoft as well government agencies[1] and the Colonial Pipeline attack substantially disrupted the petroleum supply chain[2]. We have seen an almost 20% increase in data breaches and attacks since last year.
Older posts
Newer posts