OSMA's advocacy team is constantly reviewing cases both at the state and federal level for any impact on our members. Of all of the issues we handle, medical malpractice laws protecting providers are the ones almost continuously under attack in litigation.

For example, you may recall in December of 2023, OSMA reported a win for physicians following our advocacy in a case where a plaintiff repeatedly sought to sue physicians outside of the four (4) year required deadline.

Tort reform, particularly medical malpractice laws, have historically been the subject of significant policy discussions in Ohio’s legislature and attacks in Ohio courts. The past 20 years have generally seen consistent laws establishing limitations on bringing malpractice claims, including deadlines to sue and damage caps. However, to ensure these protections do not erode, OSMA and other like-minded organizations continue to act and advocate. We have filed an advocacy brief in one such case currently with the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

Lewis v. MedCentral Health System, SCO No. 2024-0451

The Plaintiff in this case sued Ohio Health and Mansfield Hospital, along with other John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff was being treated in Mansfield Hospital in 2022 when she alleges that she was left alone after being medicated, and subsequently fell out of her bed and sustained injuries including a fractured neck. At the time of filing of this action, Plaintiff expressly described the incident in the hospital along with physicians involved in the incident, whose names she did not know, as John Does defendants.John Doe titles are used in civil litigation to refer to defendants against whom the Plaintiff has identified claims, but has yet to identify by name. Plaintiff in this case, and after the expiration of the one (1) year statute of limitations for medical claims, named an employed physician of that hospital claiming an exception in Ohio Revised Code.

The law that the Plaintiff relies upon to have named this physician outside the statute of limitations was created in 2019 by the Ohio Legislature. R.C. 2323.451(C) allows for an extension of an additional 180 days to name defendants in a medical claim IF those defendants were discovered during the discovery process of the litigation, and the plaintiff properly follows various notice provisions. Discovery is a period in civil lawsuits where parties are required to share relevant documents and information with each other prior to trial.

To be clear, the Plaintiff named this physician in the amended complaint two (2) months following the expiration of the medical claims statute of limitations. Plaintiff also did not attempt any required notice provisions prior to amending her complaint, as required by the law as a condition of the 180 day extension.

The defendant physician (formerly John Doe) argued, and the trial court agreed, that this extension of the statute of limitations applies to additional defendants discovered during the discovery process (not defendants already identified even as John Does when the suit was filed).  The plaintiff argued that any additional defendants can be added up to 180 days after the expiration of the statute of limitations, even if the plaintiff was aware of claims against those defendants at the time suit was filed. We disagree—the plain language allowing the 180 day extension requires that there must be a discovery of additional defendants or claims, not the uncovering of a name belonging to an already identified defendant or claim. Plaintiff appealed after the trial court decision and the Fifth District Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

OSMA is joined by the American Medical Association, the Ohio Hospital Association, and the Ohio Osteopathic Association in filing our amicus in this case. We argue that the Court uphold the decision of the trial court. The physician defendants in this case were known in this case to defendants during the statute of limitations. The plaintiff provided explicit description of the John Doe Defendants, but failed to properly and timely name those defendants are required by law. Plaintiff’s argument is merely another hopeful tool for medical claim plaintiffs to use and extend their time to name providers in lawsuits.

If plaintiff succeeds in this case, it will extend and broaden the scope of liability exposure for Ohio physicians, which was expressly limited by the Ohio legislature. Trial lawyers will only be emboldened to prolong litigation to name as many providers as possible for every claim they bring. It is essential that OSMA continue to advocate and push back on attempts to break down established law and rules protecting Ohio’s health care professionals.

OSMA will continue to monitor this case and provide updates accordingly.