24/7 Rapid Response - On Call Transportation Attorneys | 24/7 Data Breach Response - breachresponse@lewisbrisbois.com

Legal Alerts

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

Cleveland, Ohio (January 2, 2024) - In a landmark 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on December 28 that wrongful death claims are subject to the four-year statute of repose contained in O.R.C. 2305.113(C) (“Medical Claim Statute of Repose”). Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital, Slip No. 2023-Ohio-4670. Statutes of repose create an absolute bar to filing a lawsuit. When applicable, they bar plaintiffs from filing claims outside a specified time frame. The Medical Claim Statute of Repose creates a four-year window for commencing medical claims, which begins to run from “the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical…claim.” O.R.C. 2305.113(C)(1). Medical claims commenced after the four-year period are barred. 

The primary question before the Court was whether a wrongful death claim, which is separate and distinct from a medical negligence claim, can qualify as a “medical claim” within the context of the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. The Court answered in the affirmative. A wrongful death claim can qualify as a medical claim if the wrongful death claim “…arises out the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment, of any person.” O.R.C. 2305.113(E)(3). According to the majority, a wrongful death claim can fall within the broad definition of “medical claim” and, if it does, is subject to the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. 

The major conflict between the majority and dissenting opinions concerned the interplay between the Medical Claim Statute of Repose and Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute, O.R.C. Chapter 2125. The majority held that the Medical Claim Statute of Repose could be applied to wrongful death claims. Conversely, the dissent believed that wrongful death claims are exclusively governed by Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute, which creates a separate cause of action and does not reference or incorporate the Medical Claim Statute of Repose.

The dissenting justices were persuaded by the legislative history of Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute, specifically the changes enacted in 2004 as part of a broad tort-reform bill (“S.B. 80”).  S.B. 80 enacted a 10-year statute of repose for product liability claims, and also amended Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute to incorporate the product liability statute of repose. Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute also incorporated the 10-year statute of repose for defective-construction claims. Ohio’s legislature did not, however, amend the Wrongful Death Statute to reference or incorporate the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. According to the dissent, the Wrongful Death Statute incorporated the statutes of repose that applied to wrongful death claims—which excluded the Medical Claim Statute of Repose. 

Ultimately, the Everhart decision will have an immediate and significant impact on medical negligence cases in Ohio.

Pre-Death Pursuit of Wrongful Death Claims. 

In light of Everhart, expect to see plaintiffs who pursue a medical negligence claim that involves a patient who is alive to also file a wrongful death claim. As the dissenting opinions point out, some patients die more than four years after the alleged medical negligence. For example, a misdiagnosed patient may not die from the misdiagnosis until many years later. Before Everhart, plaintiffs in this situation could file a wrongful death claim within two years of the death under Ohio’s Wrongful Death Statute. O.R.C. 2125.02. Now, in light of Everhart, that same wrongful death claim based upon a medical misdiagnosis that occurred more than four years ago would be barred by the Medical Statute of Repose.

Voluntary Dismissals.

Everhart will likely impact the availability and use of voluntarily dismissals. Civil plaintiffs enjoy a unique advantage over defendants: the ability to voluntarily dismiss the case unilaterally and re-file within one year. Civ. R. 41(A)(1)(a); O.R.C. 2305.19(A). Everhart impacts this decision-tree. A wrongful death action originally filed within four years of the alleged medical negligence could become barred if the action is voluntarily dismissed but not re-filed within the Medical Claim Statute of Repose’s four-year window. The Supreme Court of Ohio previously ruled that the Medical Claim Statue of Repose is a “true” statute of repose and applies to all medical claims—regardless of whether they were originally filed within the four-year period. See Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483, 2016-Ohio-7432, ¶ 35.

For more information on this decision, contact the author of this alert. Visit our General Liability, Appellate Practice and Medical Malpractice practice pages for additional alerts in this area.

Related Practices


Related Attorneys

Find an Attorney

Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.