Ohio Supreme Court Extends Medical Claim Statute to Wrongful Death Claims

by Brianna Prislipsky, Esq.

In another landmark decision regarding Ohio’s contentious medical claim statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), several Reminger Co., LPA attorneys successfully persuaded the Ohio Supreme Court that wrongful death claims which arise out of the medical care, treatment, and diagnosis of an individual constitute medical claims and are thus subject to its statute of repose.

That opinion, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4670, which was decided by a close 4-3 majority and spawned two strong dissents, reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s longstanding proclamation that the medical claim statute of repose “means what it says.” In so ruling, the Court relied upon several appellate court decisions, Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 2018-Ohio-2441, 114 N.E.3d 1224 (3d Dist.), Mercer v. Keane, 2021-Ohio-1576, 172 N.E.3d 1101 (5th Dist.), and Martin v. Taylor, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021L-046, 2021-Ohio-4614, obtained by Reminger attorneys which paved the way for this pivotal opinion.

The Everhart case arose out of care rendered to the decedent, Todd Everhart, in December 2003. After an automobile accident, Everhart was transferred to Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, where several X-rays were taken. Later, a physician at the Ohio State University Medical Center reviewed those X-rays and reported an opacity that he believed to be a lung contusion.

Three years later, Everhart returned to Coshocton Hospital with complaints of abdominal pain and blood in his urine. Subsequent testing revealed that Everhart had advanced-stage lung cancer. Two months later, Everhart died.

In 2008, more than five years after the underlying care, Everhart’s widow filed a complaint for wrongful death against Coshocton Hospital and the physicians who treated Everhart, alleging that they failed to timely diagnose Everhart’s lung cancer in 2003. The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims were not filed within the four-year repose period for medical claims under R.C. 2305.113(C).

The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed and held that the statute of repose does not apply to wrongful death claims, on the basis that the definition of “medical claim” does not expressly include wrongful death claims. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which accepted it for review.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District and held that the medical claim statute of repose “clearly and unambiguously” applies to wrongful death claims. The Court began its analysis by noting that it has held numerous times prior that the language of the statute of repose is “clear, unambiguous, and means what it says.” The Court rejected a narrow reading of the statute which would confine “medical claims” to the narrow, common-law definition of “medical malpractice,” and recognized that the statutory definition was intended to be much broader.

At the close of its opinion, the Court noted that while Ohio courts have long held that the wrongful death claims are subject to their own two-year statute of limitations, rather than the one-year statute for medical claims, this issue has not been readdressed by the Court since the creation of the current medical claim statute, leaving open the possibility that the Court may revisit this position in the future.

The Everhart decision continues a long line of Supreme Court cases which have upheld and reaffirmed the broad reach of the medical claim statute, as well as the plain and unambiguous meaning of its corresponding statute of repose. If you have any questions regarding the Everhart decision, or have any questions concerning healthcare liability, please contact a member of our Medical Malpractice or Appellate Law Practice Groups.