To Qualify as ‘Medical Claim,’ Lawsuit Must be Filed Against a Type of Care Provider Named in Statute
2008-0392. Estate of Stevic v. Bio-Medical Application of Ohio, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-1525.
Richland App. No. 2006 CA 0095, 2008-Ohio-33. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the trial court.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-1525.pdf 
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
(April 8, 2009) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the one-year statute of limitations (time limit) set forth in R.C. 2305.113(A) for filing “medical claims” applies only to lawsuits filed against a practitioner or facility that falls under one of the specific categories of health care providers enumerated in the statute.
The Court’s 7-0 decision, authored by Justice Robert R. Cupp, affirmed a ruling of the 5th District Court of Appeals.
In October 2003, Donald Stevic was injured in a fall at a Mansfield kidney dialysis center operated by Bio-Medical Application of Ohio, d.b.a. FMC Dialysis Services. The fall occurred while Stevic was being transferred from his wheelchair to the dialysis machine by staff members using a “Hoyer lift” apparatus. Stevic died several months later. In October 2005, nearly two years after the fall, his widow and executor, Betty Stevic, filed suit in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas against Bio-Medical and unnamed employees, alleging negligence and seeking damages for Stevic’s injuries on behalf of his estate and for her own loss of consortium (loss of companionship).
Bio-Medical filed an answer to the complaint and a motion asking the court to grant judgment on the pleadings in their favor. They asserted that because Stevic’s claims against them arose in the course of medical treatment, her lawsuit was subject to a one-year statute of limitations for filing “medical claims” that was adopted by the General Assembly in April 2003 as part of a tort reform bill, H.B. 281. The trial court granted Bio-Medical’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Stevic’s suit.
Stevic appealed. On review, the 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court of appeals cited specific language in the tort reform statute, R.C. 2305.113(E)(3), defining a “medical claim” as one “asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, hospital, home, or residential facility, against any employee or agent of a physician, podiatrist, hospital, home or residential facility, or against a licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, advance practice nurse, physical therapist, physician assistant, or emergency medical technician ... and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care or treatment of any person.”
The appellate panel found that it was not clear from the parties’ pleadings whether the Bio-Medical dialysis center qualified as one of the types of facilities enumerated in R.C. 2305.113(E)(3), or whether the unnamed employees operating the Hoyer lift when Mr. Stevic was injured fell under any of the categories of medical professionals enumerated in the statute. Based on those findings, the 5th District held that the trial court erred in finding that the Stevic’s suit unambiguously qualified as a “medical claim,” and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of that issue. Bio-Medical sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the court of appeals’ decision.
Writing for a unanimous Court in today’s decision, Justice Cupp agreed with the 5th District’s legal analysis and remand of the case to the trial court. He wrote: “The term ‘medical claim’ as defined in R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) has two components that the statute states in the conjunctive: (1) the claim is asserted against one or more of the specifically enumerated medical providers and (2) the claim arises out of medical diagnosis, care, or treatment. We must give full meanings to all of the express statutory language. … Therefore, based on the plain meaning of the legislature’s enactment, we hold that for the purposes of the R.C. 2305.113(A) one-year statute of limitations, a medical claim under R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) is a claim that both (1) arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person and (2) is asserted against one or more of the statutorily enumerated medical providers.”
“Moreover, as the appellate court correctly concluded, because Stevic’s complaint did not clearly indicate whether any of her claims were asserted against medical providers enumerated in R.C. 2305.113(E), the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Bio-Medical was premature. Remand is appropriate because further proceedings in the trial court are required to determine whether Stevic’s complaint alleges a medical claim within the purview of R.C. 2305.113.”
Contacts
Jane F. Warner, 216.592.5000, for Bio-Medical Applications of Ohio d.b.a. FMC Dialysis Services.
Jeffrey S. Ream, 419.347.4900, for Betty A. Stevic and Estate of Donald Stevic.