Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

May 23, 2006

It sometimes amazes me how the law turns on the slightest things. One of the attorneys in my office has a medical malpractice case, and had sent out a 180 day letter under ORC 2305.113 extending the statute of limitations. Actually, being a very cautious sort, he had sent out three of them: a letter to the doctor's office, a letter to the doctor's home, and then had hand-delivered yet another notice to the doctor's office, all within about a month's period of time. The question now is, does the time for filing run from the first letter or the last letter?


That question was answered back in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Ortega: it runs from the last letter. Why? Because the law until 1987 referred to "a" written notice. When the statute was amended, the word "a" was left out; the law now provides that "written notice" can extend the time limit. The Court interpreted this as evidence of "the legislative intent that under the current version of R.C. 2305.11 more than one notice can be effective in extending the time limit."

Interestingly, Marshall affirmed a Cuyahoga County appellate decision. Our court did not find the "a"/not "a" distinction particularly meaningful, deciding the question on policy considerations.

I think the decision is correct, for the policy reasons; as both courts explain, the purpose of the notice provision is to extend the statute to allow counsel to have sufficient time to investigate the merits of a potential action. Allowing the time to run from the last letter, so long as that's within the original statutory period, gives no more than the law allows in the first place.

But the Supreme Court's decision highlights some of the pitfalls of textualism in statutory and constitutional interpretation. I'm not a betting man - or at least, not a good one, as my forays to Vegas have sadly shown - but if I were, I'd bet that the Case of the Disappearing "A" was more likely due to a typographical error or simple omission than to conscious design.  Lawyers are second only to literary critics in trying to milk every drop of meaning from every word.  But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions