Rossi v. Atrium Med. Ctr. ( 2023 )

[Cite as Rossi v. Atrium Med. Ctr., 2023-Ohio-984.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
ARTHUR ROSSI, :
Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2022-05-027
: OPINION
- vs - 3/27/2023
:
ATRIUM MEDICAL CENTER, et al., :
Appellees. :
APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 22-CV-94845
Michael Todd McIntosh, for appellant.
Bieser, Greer & Landis, LLP, and John F. Haviland and Elizabeth D. Wilfong, for appellee,
Atrium Medical Center.
Lindhorst & Dreidame Co., LPA, and Michael F. Lyon and Bradley D. McPeek, for appellees,
Mid-Valley Gastroenterology Associates, Dr. Daryl Hacker, and Dr. Kuldip Sharma.
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Arthur Rossi, individually and as executor of the Estate of Nancy J.
Rossi, appeals from a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas dismissing
the medical malpractice and wrongful death claims asserted against appellees, Atrium
Medical Center ("Atrium"), Mid-Valley Gastroenterology Associates ("MVGA"), Dr. Daryl
Warren CA2022-05-027
Hacker, and Dr. Kuldip Sharma, upon finding the claims are barred by the four-year statute
of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial
court's decision.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Nancy J. Rossi died on March 22, 2017, allegedly as a result of medical
negligence committed by appellees. In March 2017, Nancy, in the care of MVGA, had a
colonoscopy and polypectomy performed by Dr. Sharma. She subsequently experienced
rectal bleeding and significant blood loss and sought treatment at Atrium. Though Nancy
needed a blood transfusion, Atrium would not perform the procedure without an order from
MVGA. Dr. Hacker, an associate at MVGA, denied the request for a transfusion until he
could physically examine Nancy. Prior to Dr. Hacker performing an examination, Nancy
suffered cardiac arrest and died.
{¶3} On March 20, 2018, Rossi, Nancy's husband, filed a complaint for medical
malpractice and wrongful death. On January 27, 2021, Rossi dismissed the action without
prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). He refiled the case on January 20, 2022—within
one year of his voluntary dismissal, again asserting claims of medical malpractice and
wrongful death.
{¶4} On February 8, 2022, MVGA, Dr. Hacker, and Dr. Sharma filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), contending the complaint was filed
outside the time period permitted by the applicable statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C).
Atrium filed a similar motion to dismiss on April 6, 2022. Relying on the Ohio Supreme
Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419, 2020-Ohio-6827, appellees
argued in their respective motions that the saving statute set forth in R.C. 2305.19(A) could
not be applied to allow Rossi to refile his claims after the four-year statute of repose for
medical claims had expired. Because Rossi had not brought his claims by March 22, 2021,
-2-
Warren CA2022-05-027
four years from the date of Nancy's medical treatment and subsequent death, appellees
contended Rossi's claims were time barred. Appellees did not differentiate between the
medical malpractice and wrongful death claims but, rather, argued that all of Rossi's claims
should be dismissed as they fell outside the four-year statute of repose for medical claims
set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C).
{¶5} Rossi filed a memorandum in opposition to appellees' motions to dismiss,
arguing that that the supreme court's decision in Wilson was "in direct conflict with the law
as it appears in the very same statute, fails to recognize basic interpretation of terms within
the statute, and stands against the basic and fundamental principles of statutory
interpretation." Rossi urged the trial court to disregard the precedent in Wilson, declare his
claims timely filed, and permit his claims to proceed to trial.
{¶6} The trial court, applying Wilson, held that the "statute of repose dictates that
[Rossi] must have brought these claims by March 22, 2021. * * * [T]he Court finds that
[Rossi] is seeking to commence a medical malpractice suit, outside the applicable statute
of repose." The court therefore granted appellees' respective motions and dismissed
Rossi's claims with prejudice. In dismissing all of Rossi's claims, the trial court implicitly
applied the four-year statute of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) to his wrongful death
claims.1
II. ANALYSIS
{¶7} Rossi appealed the dismissal of his claims, raising two assignments of error.
Prior to addressing the merits of his assignments of error, we set forth the standard that
governs our review of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.
1. The trial court granted MVGA's, Dr. Hacker's, and Dr. Sharma's motion to dismiss on April 4, 2022. It
subsequently granted Atrium's motion to dismiss on April 22, 2022. The analysis in both decisions was
identical.
-3-
Warren CA2022-05-027
A. Standard of Review
{¶8} Civ.R. 12(B)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Marchetti v. Blankenburg, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-
09-232, 2011-Ohio-2212, ¶ 9. "In order to prevail on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, 'it must
appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling
relief.'" Id., quoting DeMell v. The Cleveland Clinic Found., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88505,
2007-Ohio-2924, ¶ 7. In ruling on a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the trial court
must presume that all factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190,
192 (1988). "A trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6)
is subject to de novo review on appeal." BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Kolenich, 194
Ohio App.3d 777, 2011-Ohio-3345, ¶ 35 (12th Dist.).
B. Medical Malpractice Claims
{¶9} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE
DEFENDANTS'/APPELLEES' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
CLAIMS.
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Rossi argues that in dismissing his medical
malpractice claims, the trial court erred by applying the holding in Wilson v. Durrani, 2020-
Ohio-6827. He contends that the holding in Wilson should be abandoned and the one-year
savings clause set forth in R.C. 2305.19(A) be applied to his medical malpractice claims,
making the claims timely filed.
{¶12} In Wilson, Sands and Wilson, two patients who had undergone spinal surgery
by Dr. Durrani in April 2010 and February and April 2011, respectively, filed suit in
December 2015 against Dr. Durrani, his clinic, and two hospitals. Id. at ¶ 2. Prior to bringing
-4-
Warren CA2022-05-027
that suit, Sands and Wilson had previously filed claims against the defendants but
voluntarily dismissed them pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). Id. at ¶ 3. Sands' initial complaint
was first filed in March 2013 and dismissed without prejudice on November 25, 2015. Id.
Wilson's initial complaint was filed in April 2013 and dismissed without prejudice on
December 11, 2015. Id. After Sands and Wilson refiled their complaints in December 2015,
the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending Ohio's medical-claim
statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), barred the refiled claims because they arose out of
surgeries that had been performed more than four years earlier. Id. at ¶ 4. The trial court
agreed and granted the defendants' motions. Id.
{¶13} On appeal, Wilson and Sands argued that the trial court erred in granting
judgment to the defendants because Ohio's saving statute afforded them one year after
voluntary dismissal to refile their claims, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
repose. Id. at ¶ 5. The appellate court agreed and reversed the trial court's decision. Id.
The supreme court accepted the defendants' discretionary appeal to address "whether a
plaintiff may take advantage of Ohio's saving statute to refile a medical claim after the
applicable one-year statute of limitations has expired if the four-year statute of repose for
medical claims has also expired." Id. at ¶ 1.
{¶14} After considering the interplay between the one-year statute of limitations for
medical claims set forth in R.C. 2305.113(A),2 the four-year statute of repose for medical
claims set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C),3 and the one-year saving statute set forth in R.C.
2. R.C. 2305.113(A) states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, an action upon a medical * * *
claim shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued."
3. The medical-claim statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), provides in relevant part as follows:
Except as to persons within the age of minority or of unsound mind as
provided by section 2305.16 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in
division (D) of this section, both of the following apply:
-5-
Warren CA2022-05-027
2305.19(A),4 the supreme court answered the aforementioned question in the negative. Id.
at ¶ 1, 7. It held, in relevant part, as follows:
In light of the purpose of a statute of repose—to create a bar on
a defendant's temporal liability—exceptions to a statute of
repose require "a particular indication that the legislature did not
intend the statute to provide complete repose but instead
anticipated the extension of the statutory period under certain
circumstances," as when the statute of repose itself contains an
express exception. California Pub. Emps.' Retirement Sys. [v.
ANZ Sec., Inc.], U.S. , 137 S.Ct. 2042, 2050 (2017)] * * *.
The General Assembly did incorporate into R.C. 2305.113(C)
two express exceptions. First, the statute of repose is tolled "as
to persons within the age of minority or of unsound mind as
provided in" R.C. 2305.16. Second, R.C. 2305.113(D) extends
the four-year repose period for two specific categories of claims:
(1) those that accrue in the last year of the repose period, R.C.
2305.113(D)(1), and (2) those based upon a foreign object left
in a patient's body. R.C. 2305.113(D)(2). R.C. 2305.113(C)
notably does not contain an exception for application of the
saving statute, and we may not read one into the statute by
implication. Unless one of the stated exceptions applies, R.C.
2305.113(C) clearly and unambiguously prohibits the
commencement of any action upon a medical claim more than
four years after the act or omission upon which the claim is
based.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 29. "Expiration of the statute of repose precludes the
commencement, pursuant to the saving statute, of a claim that has previously failed
otherwise than on the merits in a prior action." Id. at ¶ 38. The supreme court therefore
(1) No action upon a medical * * * claim shall be commenced more than four
years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged
basis of the medical * * * claim.
(2) If an action upon a medical * * * claim is not commenced within four years
after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of
the medical * * * claim, then, any action upon that claim is barred.
4. The saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), provides as follows:
In any action that is commenced or attempted to be commenced, * * * if the
plaintiff fails otherwise than upon the merits, the plaintiff * * * may commence
a new action within one year after the date of * * * the plaintiff's failure
otherwise than upon the merits or within the period of the original applicable
statute of limitations, whichever occurs later.
-6-
Warren CA2022-05-027
concluded that Sands' and Wilson's refiled medical claims were barred by the statute of
repose and that judgment on the pleadings had been appropriately granted to the
defendants by the trial court. Id. at ¶ 39.
{¶15} The circumstances in the present case mirror those in Wilson. Rossi refiled
his medical malpractice claim on January 20, 2022—more than four years after Nancy's
medical treatment and subsequent death on March 22, 2017. The statute of repose set
forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) therefore precludes the commencement of Rossi's medical
malpractice claim.
{¶16} Rossi urges this court to overrule the holding of Wilson, contending it was
incorrectly decided. However, "[a]s an intermediate appellate court, we 'cannot either
overrule or modify the law established by the Ohio Supreme Court but, rather, are duty
bound to follow the law as pronounced by the Ohio Supreme Court, and must leave any
desirable modification thereof to the Supreme Court."' Vanderbilt v. Pier 27, LLC, 12th Dist.
Butler No. CA2013-02-029, 2013-Ohio-5205, ¶ 15, quoting McVey v. Terrell, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 75AP-140, 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 8465, *7 (Sept. 9, 1975).
{¶17} Accordingly, we find that the trial court appropriately relied on the supreme
court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, 2020-Ohio-6827, in granting appellees' motions to
dismiss the medical malpractice claims. As Rossi commenced his action for medical
malpractice more than four years after the alleged conduct that formed the basis of his claim
occurred, the statute of repose barred his refiled action for medical malpractice. Rossi's
first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
C. Wrongful Death Claims
{¶18} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS OF THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AS A WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM SHOULD SURVIVE A
-7-
Warren CA2022-05-027
DISMISSAL OF A CONCOMITANT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM.
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Rossi argues the trial court erred in
dismissing his wrongful death claims as such claims are "separate and distinct" from his
medical malpractice claims and are not subject to the four-year statute of repose set forth
in R.C. 2305.113(C).5
{¶21} We begin our analysis by noting that "wrongful death is a separate and unique
cause of action from other claims." Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629, ¶ 16. "[A]n action for wrongful death, creates a new
cause or right of action distinct and apart from the right of action which the injured person
might have had and upon the existence of which such new right is conditioned." Karr v.
Sixt, 146 Ohio St. 527 (1946), paragraph one of the syllabus.
[W]hen a person is injured by the tortious conduct of another
person and the person later dies from the injury, two claims
arise. The first is a claim for malpractice or personal injury,
enforced either by the injured person herself or by her
representative in a survival action. The second is a wrongful
death claim, enforced by the decedent’s personal
representative on behalf of the decedent’s beneficiaries.
Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176, 179 (1994). A wrongful death action begins where
the malpractice or personal injury action ends and "a recovery upon both in the same action
is not a double recovery for a single wrong but a single recovery for a double wrong." Klema
v. St. Elizabeth's Hospital, 170 Ohio St. 519, 521 (1960).
{¶22} A wrongful death action is a special statutory action which did not exist at
common law. Id. at 524. A cause of action for wrongful death is governed by R.C. Chapter
2125. R.C. 2125.01 provides, "[w]hen the death of a person is caused by wrongful act,
neglect, or default which would have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and
5. We find the issue is properly before us, given the trial court's implicit application of the four-year statute of
repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) to Rossi's wrongful death claims.
-8-
Warren CA2022-05-027
recover damages if death had not ensued, the person who would have been liable if death
had not ensued * * * shall be liable to an action for damages." The statute of limitations for
a wrongful death action is set forth in R.C. 2125.02(D) and provides as follows:
(1) Except as provided in division (D)(2) of this section, a civil
action for wrongful death shall be commenced within two years
after the decedent's death.
(2)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (D)(2)(b), (c), (d),
(e), (f), and (g) of this section or in section 2125.04 of the
Revised Code, no cause of action for wrongful death involving
a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or
supplier of a product later than ten years from the date that the
product was delivered to its first purchaser or first lessee who
was not engaged in a business in which the product was used
as a component in the production, construction, creation,
assembly, or rebuilding of another product.
Divisions (D)(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) provide exceptions to the products-liability statute
of repose set forth in R.C. 2125.02(D)(2)(a). R.C. 2125.04, in turn, provides a saving statute
for wrongful death actions, which allows the actions to be refiled when certain situations
occur.6 Thus, R.C. 2125.02(D) expressly provides only one exception to the
commencement period provided in R.C. 2125.02(D)(1) for wrongful death claims and that
exception is applicable to wrongful death claims related to product liabilities. Ewing v. UC
Health, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210390, 2022-Ohio-2560, ¶ 15.
{¶23} The trial court found that Rossi's wrongful death claims were additionally
6. The wrongful death saving statute set forth in R.C. 2125.04 provides as follows:
In every civil action for wrongful death that is commenced or attempted to be
commenced within the time specified by division (D)(1) or (D)(2)(c), (d), (e),
(f), or (g) of section 2125.02 of the Revised Code, if a judgment for the plaintiff
is reversed or the plaintiff fails otherwise than upon the merits, the plaintiff or,
if the plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives, the personal
representative of the plaintiff may commence a new civil action for wrongful
death within one year after the date of the reversal of the judgment or the
plaintiff’s failure otherwise than upon the merits or within the period specified
by any of those divisions, whichever occurs later.
-9-
Warren CA2022-05-027
subject to the medical-malpractice statute of repose contained in R.C. 2305.113(C). This
statute provides as follows:
Except as to persons within the age of minority or of unsound
mind as provided by section 2305.16 of the Revised Code, and
except as provided in division (D) of this section, both of the
following apply:
(1) No action upon a medical * * * claim shall be commenced
more than four years after the occurrence of the act or omission
constituting the alleged basis of the medical * * * claim.
(2) If an action upon a medical * * * claim is not commenced
within four years after the occurrence of the act or omission
constituting the alleged basis of the medical * * * claim, then,
any action upon that claim is barred.
R.C. 2305.113(C).
{¶24} As used in R.C. 2305.113, a "medical claim" is defined as:
any claim that is 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, advanced practice registered nurse, physical
therapist, physician assistant, emergency medical technician-
basic, emergency medical technician-intermediate, or
emergency medical technician-paramedic, and that arises out
of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person.
"Medical claim" includes the following:
(a) Derivative claims for relief that arise from the medical
diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person;
(b) Derivative claims for relief that arise from the plan of care
prepared for a resident of a home;
(c) Claims that arise out of the medical diagnosis, care, or
treatment of any person or claims that arise out of the plan of
care prepared for a resident of a home and to which both types
of claims either of the following applies:
(i) The claim results from acts or omissions in providing
medical care.
(ii) The claim results from the hiring, training, supervision,
retention, or termination of caregivers providing medical
- 10 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
diagnosis, care, or treatment.
(d) Claims that arise out of the plan of care, medical diagnosis,
or treatment of any person and that are brought under section
3721.17 of the Revised Code;
(e) Claims that arise out of skilled nursing care or personal care
services provided in a home pursuant to the plan of care,
medical diagnosis, or treatment.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2305.113(E)(3).
{¶25} This appeal, therefore, asks us to determine whether the medical-claim
statute of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) limits the time for commencing a wrongful
death claim where such claim arises from the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the decedent.
This issue has been addressed in several of our sister districts and has created a conflict
among those districts.
{¶26} The Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Districts have held that a wrongful death claim
related to the medical care, diagnosis, or treatment of the decedent was subject to the
medical-claim statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C). See Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 3d
Dist. Wyandot No. 16-17-07, 2018-Ohio-2441; Mercer v. Keane, 5th Dist. Coshocton No.
20CA0013, 2021-Ohio-1576; Martin v. Taylor, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-046, 2021-Ohio-
4614; Kennedy v. Western Reserve Senior Care, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2021-P-0055,
2023-Ohio-264. These courts acknowledged that wrongful death claims are subject to their
own statute of limitations outside R.C. 2305.113(A), but still found that the claims are subject
to the medical-claim statute of repose based on the language of R.C. 2305.113(E). See
Smith at ¶ 22 ("[b]ecause any action bringing a medical claim is barred by Ohio's medical
claim statute of repose if it is not timely commenced, we conclude that wrongful-death
actions fall within the scope of 'any action' and are subject to the time restraints of the statute
of repose"); Mercer at ¶ 38; Martin at ¶ 44-46 (holding that "although the wrongful death
claim is subject to a different statute of limitations, it does not follow that [it] is not a 'medical
- 11 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
claim' for purposes of the statute of repose"); Kennedy at ¶ 29-32 (noting that the statute of
repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) applies where the definition of "medical claim" is met;
that is, the claim is asserted in a civil action, against those medical defendants identified
and listed in the statute, and it arose from the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any
person). As further evidence that a wrongful death action based on a medical claim is
subject to the statute of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C), the Third District noted that
Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavits of merit are required for wrongful death claims arising out of
medical malpractice. See Smith at ¶ 30 ("[the] estate included with its complaint affidavits
of merit as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2). Therefore [the] estate's wrongful-death action
asserts a medical claim * * * [and] is subject to Ohio's medical-claim statute of repose").
{¶27} Conversely, the First, Sixth, and Tenth Districts have recently held that a
wrongful death claim related to the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a decedent is
not subject to the medical-claim statute of repose contained in R.C. 2305.113(C). See
Ewing v. UC Health, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210390, 2022-Ohio-2560, appeal accepted,
168 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2022-Ohio-4268; Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266, appeal accepted, 167 Ohio St.3d 1490, 2022-Ohio-2788;
Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629,
appeal accepted, 167 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2022-Ohio-2162.7 In so holding, the First, Sixth,
7. The Supreme Court of Ohio certified a conflict in Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629, appeal accepted, 167 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2022-Ohio-2162, finding the Tenth
District's decision in conflict with decisions from the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh appellate districts, namely Smith
v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-17-07, 2018-Ohio-2441, Mercer v. Keane, 5th Dist.
Coshocton No. 20CA0013, 2021-Ohio-1576, and Martin v. Taylor, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-046, 2021-
Ohio-4614. The court ordered the parties to brief the following issue: "Does the statute of repose for medical
claims, set forth under R.C. 2305.113(C), apply to statutory wrongful death claims?" Subsequently, the
supreme court found that the First District's decision in Ewing v. UC Health, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210390,
2022-Ohio-2560, appeal accepted, 168 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2022-Ohio-4268, and the Sixth District's decision in
Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266, appeal accepted, 167
Ohio St.3d 1490, 2022-Ohio-2788, were also in conflict with decisions from the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh
Districts. The court ordered that briefing be stayed in Ewing and Davis and the cases held for the decision in
the Everhart appeal. Oral argument was held before the supreme court in the Everhart appeal on February
28, 2023.
- 12 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
and Tenth Districts focused on the statutory language of R.C. 2125.02, noting that the only
statute of repose included in the wrongful death statute is in the products liability context.
Everhart at ¶ 21; Davis at ¶ 58; Ewing at ¶ 27.
{¶28} "No exception is recognized within R.C. 2305.113 for medical negligence
resulting in death, yet it is well-established that a wrongful-death claim premised on medical
malpractice is governed by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C.
2125.02(D)(1)—not R.C. 2305.113(A). * * * If a wrongful-death claim is not subject to the
statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.113(A), we see no reason that it would be subject to the
other limitations periods set forth in that statute." Davis at ¶ 57. The court reasoned:
R.C. 2125.02(D)(1) states that "except as provided in division
(D)(2)," a wrongful-death claim must be commenced within two
years after the decedent's death. (Emphasis added.) In other
words, the only exceptions to the limitations period are provided
in (D)(2). R.C. 2125.02(D)(2)(a) creates a ten-year statute of
repose for wrongful-death actions involving product-liability
claims (subject to certain exceptions further described in
division (D)(2)). No similar repose period is established for
wrongful-death actions involving medical claims. If the
legislature had intended to impose a repose-period for wrongful-
death actions involving claims of medical malpractice, it could
have done so in the same manner that it did for wrongful-death
actions involving claims of product liability.
Id. at ¶ 58.
{¶29} The court further noted that
R.C. 2305.10 contains a separate—but substantially similar—
provision creating the same repose period for actions for non-
fatal product-liability claims. R.C. 2305.10(C)(1) broadly states
that, subject to certain exceptions, "no cause of action based on
a product liability claim shall accrue against the manufacturer or
supplier of a product later than ten years from the [initial delivery
of the product.]" In this respect, the breadth of the product-
liability statute of repose is similar to the breadth of the medical-
claim statute of repose. That is, R.C. 2305.113(C) broadly
states that, subject to certain exceptions, "[n]o action upon a
medical * * * claim shall be commenced more than four years
after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the
alleged basis of the medical * * * claim." Despite the
- 13 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
unambiguously-broad nature of both statutes of repose, the
legislature found it necessary to restate the product-liability
statute of repose—but not the medical-claim statute of repose—
within the Wrongful Death Act, thereby creating a statute of
repose specifically applicable to wrongful-death actions. We
must assume that if the medical-claim statute of repose was
intended to apply to wrongful-death actions based upon medical
claims, the legislature would have included it within the Wrongful
Death Act, as it did for wrongful-death actions based upon
product-liability claims. Indeed, if we were to interpret the
medical-claim statute of repose as nonetheless applicable to
wrongful-death claims even though it is not included within the
Wrongful Death Act, we would render R.C. 2125.02(D)(2)(a)
redundant, meaningless, or superfluous—which is an
interpretation we must avoid under well-established rules of
statutory construction. See State v. Pettus, 163 Ohio St.3d 55,
2020-Ohio-4836, 168 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 14; D.A.B.E., Inc. v.
Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. Of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250, 2002-
Ohio-4172, 773 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 26.
Further to this point, we are aware of two statutes applicable to
wrongful-death claims that exist outside the Wrongful Death Act
itself—R.C. 2305.131(A)(1) and R.C. 2305.101(A). R.C.
2305.131(A)(1) establishes a ten-year statute of repose for
actions for wrongful death that arise out of a defective and
unsafe condition of an improvement to real property. But this
provision expressly states that "[n]otwithstanding an otherwise
applicable period of limitations specified * * * in section 2125.02
of the Revised Code * * *, no cause of action to recover
damages for bodily injury, an injury to real or personal property,
or wrongful death that arises out of a defective and unsafe
condition of an improvement to real property * * * shall accrue *
* * later than ten years from the date of substantial completion
of such improvement." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, R.C.
2305.101(A), applicable to claims for bodily injury or wrongful
death caused by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device, provides
a specific limitation period for those claims "[n]otwithstanding
the limitations provided for in section[] 2125.02 * * * of the
Revised Code." (Emphasis added.) When enacting R.C.
2305.131(A)(1) and R.C. 2305.101(A), the legislature included
express language within those statutes to clarify that it was
creating repose periods for wrongful-death claims that run
counter to the limitations periods that are otherwise set forth in
the Wrongful Death Act—making it clear that the legislature
knows how to carve out such exceptions. There is no similar
language within R.C. 2305.113(C) to indicate that the legislature
was enacting a statute of repose for wrongful-death actions
based upon medical claims that would apply "notwithstanding
the limitations provided for in section 2125.02."
- 14 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
Davis at ¶ 58-60. Accord Everhart at ¶ 21-29; Ewing at ¶ 27-31.
{¶30} As for the significance of Civ.R. 10(D)(2), the Davis court stated:
we disagree that because courts have held that the Civ.R.
10(D)(2) affidavit-of-merit requirement applies to wrongful-death
claims arising from medical negligence, this dictates the
conclusion that the medical-claim statute of repose is also
applicable. Certainly, numerous Ohio appellate districts have
held that wrongful-death claims that arise from "the medical
diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person," are subject to the
Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit requirement. See e.g., Wilson v. Mercy
Health, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2021-T-0004, 2021-Ohio-2470,
¶ 33; Wick v. Lorain Manor, Inc., 9th Dist. Lorain No.
12CA010324, 2014-Ohio-4329, ¶ 18; Flynn v. Cleveland Clinic
Health Sys.-E., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105720, 2018-Ohio-
585, ¶ 4. But the Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit-of-merit requirement
is a procedural rule. Oglesby v. Consol. Rail Corp., 6th Dist.
Erie No. E-08-055, 2009-Ohio-1744, ¶ 24. We see a distinction
between applying Civ.R. 10(D)(2) to all claims, including
wrongful-death claims, arising from "the medical diagnosis,
care, or treatment of any person," and applying R.C. 2305.113's
limitations periods to those claims—particularly given that
courts do not apply R.C. 2305.113(A) to wrongful-death claims.
Davis at ¶ 62.
{¶31} We have considered the conflicting approaches and rationales taken by our
sister courts and are persuaded to follow the approach taken by the Third, Fifth, and
Eleventh Districts. R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) defines a "medical claim" as "any claim that is
asserted in any civil action against a physician [or] * * * hospital * * * that arises out of the
medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person." (Emphasis added.) R.C.
2305.113(C)(2), in turn, provides that "[i]f an action upon a medical * * ** claim is not
commenced within four years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the
alleged basis of the medical * * * claim, then any action upon that claim is barred."
(Emphasis added). The plain language of R.C. 2305.113 subjects Rossi's wrongful death
claims—claims which arose out of a medical claim—subject to the four-year statute of
repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C). As Rossi did not file the wrongful death claims by
- 15 -
Warren CA2022-05-027
March 22, 2021, the statute of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) barred his refiled action.
Rossi's second assignment of error is without merit and is therefore overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
{¶32} For the reasons stated above, we find that the trial court did not err in applying
the four-year statute of repose set forth in R.C. 2305.113(C) to Rossi's medical malpractice
claims or to his wrongful death claims. Rossi's claims were time barred and properly
dismissed.
{¶33} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.
- 16 -