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 »

×

July 11, 2006

One of the guys in the office recently had a potential malpractice case come in, except that the alleged malpractice happened more than four years ago.  That's a problem; RC 2305.113(C) provides a four-year statute of repose for med-mal actions.  A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations, but works slightly differently:  the latter runs from the time that the cause of action accrues, while the former runs from the date of occurrence, and is an absolute bar.

For example, let's say you get heart surgery in 1998.  You don't have any problems until 2003, when they have to cut you open again, at which time your new doctor tells you that your old doctor screwed up.  The statute of limitations isn't a bar, because the cause of action didn't "accrue" until you were told (or had reason to believe) that the first doctor committed malpractice.  But the statute of repose prohibits the action, because it provides that an action can't be brought more than four years "after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis" for the malpractice claim.  Which, of course, is the 1998 surgery.

There's no case law on the statute, because it was only enacted in 2003, and wouldn't apply to any cases prior to that time.  It's flatly unconstitutional, though, at least under current Supreme Court cases.  Back in 1999, in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, the Supreme Court tossed out the tort reforms the Ohio legislature had passed in 1996, including a statute of repose for medical malpractice cases.  Since then, of course, the legislature's passed a whole raft of tort reform legislation, and given the changes in the composition of the Supreme Court over the past several years, the fate of that legislation is uncertain.

I think it's unlikely that the statute of repose will survive, though, because the argument against it is pretty good.  Even before Sheward, the Court had struck down the architectural statute of repose of 10 years in Brennaman v. RMI, on the grounds that it violated the Ohio Constitution's right to remedy provision, because it could deny a person a remedy before they were even aware that they had been wronged.

I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of tort reform.  You can make some decent arguments for a lengthy statute of repose in certain instances, but four years for medical malpractice is simply brutal.  It'll probably be another three years before we get a definitive answer on this one, though.

Search

Recent Entries

  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.
  • May 30, 2017
    Case Update
    One searches SCOTUSblog in vain for decisions which would be of interest to the uncounted hordes of this blog's regular readers; one of the Court's opinions last week deals with the Hague Service Convention's rules on international service by mail,...
  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes