Ohio’s Medical Claim Statute Now Applies to Wrongful Death Claims Stemming from Medical Claims

On December 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of Ohio rendered a decision in the 15-year-old case, Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital (Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4670). In this landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that wrongful death claims stemming from medical care are medical claims for purposes of Ohio's R.C. § 2305.113, the statute governing medical malpractice claims.

Facts and Procedural History

The events of this case began in 2003, when Plaintiff's husband (the decedent) was involved in a car accident. The husband presented to Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, where X-rays were performed before he was transferred to the Ohio State University. The husband was eventually discharged from OSU and recovered. However, in 2006, the husband returned to Coshocton with abdominal pain, blood in his urine, and a cough. After further testing, the staff found a mass in the husband's right lung, which turned out to be advanced-stage lung cancer. The husband passed two months after this visit.

Plaintiff filed an action against several defendants in 2008, alleging claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death. After years of litigation, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing Plaintiff failed to bring her claim within Ohio's four-year statute of repose.

Ohio's statute of repose can be found under R.C. § 2305.113(C). It states:

(1) No action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim shall be commenced more than four years after the occurrence of the auto or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim.

(2) If an action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim is not commenced within four years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim, then, any action upon that claim is barred.

Thus, even if a Plainitff could not have discovered an injury until four years after the alleged medical malpractice occurred, the Plaintiff is barred from bringing their claim. (Note: This does not apply to claims regarding foreign objects left in the body of a patient.)

Defendants argued that because the alleged malpractice occurred in 2003, Plaintiff was required to bring her claim in 2007; as such, the Plaintiff's 2008 filing was time-barred.

The trial court granted Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in January 2021. Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, et al., Franklin County No. 08CV001385.

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the 10th District Court of Appeals, arguing the medical claim statute of repose does not apply to wrongful deaths, as a separate statute (R.C. Chapter 2125). Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, et al., 10th District Court of Appeals No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629. The 10th District reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding that wrongful death claims are distinct from medical malpractice claims. Id.

Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2023.

The Supreme Court's Decision

On December 28, 2023, in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that wrongful death claims are not distinct from medical malpractice claims when the wrongful death stems from alleged medical malpractice. Thus, the medical malpractice four-year statute of repose may also apply to wrongful death claims.

The Court first looked to the plain meaning of R.C. § 2305.113(A), holding the statute "means what it says." Pursuant to that holding, the Court stated that the language of R.C. § 2305.113 is broad, and does not explicitly exclude wrongful death claims from the statute of repose. Further, R.C. § 2305.113 covers claims "asserted in any civil action against a physician *** that arise[] out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment" of a patient. Such claims can include deaths resulting from alleged medical malpractice, and thus fall under the statute of repose.

The Court also analyzed R.C. Chapter 2115 (Ohio's wrongful death laws) and found no statute of repose exists specifically for all wrongful death cases. (Note: A wrongful death statute of repose does apply to product liability claims.) Therefore, the medical claim statute of repose does not contradict any part of R.C. Chapter 2115, and therefore can (and does) apply to wrongful death claims stemming from medical malpractice.

The Supreme Court ended its opinion by holding:

Wrongful-death claims based on medical care are clearly and unambiguously included in the broad definition of "medical claim" that applies to the statute of repose found in R.C. 2305.113(C).

The case will now be remanded to the 10th District Court of Appeals for an unrelated issue.

Impact on Medical Malpractice Defense in Ohio

The Supreme Court's decision not only affects the parties to Everhart, but also affects a slew of other cases whose outcomes hinged on Everhart. See Wood v. Lynch, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4698; McCarthy v. Lee, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4699; Maxwell v. Lombardi, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4700; Ewing v. UC Health, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4701.

The decision will undoubtedly change medical malpractice litigation going forward. Now, even if a plaintiff did not know or could not have known that a wrongful death was caused by alleged negligence of a medical professional, the plaintiff cannot bring the claim if four years have passed since the alleged negligence occurred. This adds greater protections for medical professionals, shielding them from claims being brought long after the care was rendered. Now, medical professionals can practice without the fear of looming claims from decades prior. On the whole, this is a huge win for defense litigators in Ohio.

I'm interested to know your thoughts on this landmark decision. Leave a comment below, or contact me if you would like to discuss further.