Statute Of Limitations Begins When Physician-Patient Relationship Terminates: R.C. 2305.113(A) provides that a claim for medical malpractice must be brought within one year “after the cause of action accrued.” R.C. 2305.113(B)(1) provides: “if prior to the expiration of the one-year period specified in division (A) of this section, a claimant who allegedly possesses a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim gives to the
person who is the subject of that claim written notice that the claimant is considering bringing an action upon that claim, that action may be commenced against the person notified at any time within one hundred eighty days after the notice is so given.” According to the Ohio Supreme Court, written notice for purposes of the 180-day letter will be deemed to have been given when received.
The Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District Of Ohio (“Ohio Appellate Court”) stated in its December 12, 2022 Opinion: “”A cause of action for medical malpractice accrues either “(1) when the patient discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury, or (2) when the physician-patient relationship terminates, whichever occurs later” … Therefore, the accrual date for a medical claim is determined by “termination” or “discovery,” whichever occurs later.”
The Ohio Appellate Court stated: “In this case, Michelle sought treatment from the Hospital emergency department on March 2, 2014, for abdominal pain and a possible urinary tract infection. In connection with that visit, medical personnel ordered the administration of Zofran. According to the summary judgment evidence, Michelle stated that she told multiple individuals that she was allergic to that drug and was unwilling to take it. Despite this, Michelle stated that the drug was administered, and she developed complications as a result. Michelle was then treated for these complications over the next days until she was discharged on March 6.”
“Although Michelle never received any care from Dr. Koster or P.A. Bryant after she left the emergency room, Michelle continued to receive care from Dr. Okoli for an adverse reaction allegedly caused in the emergency room. Michelle remained in the same hospital and received care from subsequent medical professionals against whom Michelle does not claim committed malpractice. The statute of limitations therefore began to run as soon as the relationship for the particular condition terminated and not when Michelle was transferred into an inpatient room … There is no dispute that the Zofran was administered in the emergency room, which led to the complications that Michelle complains of. Therefore, the Sullivans 180-day letter was timely served on the Hospital on May 3. Unlike Asai, the Sullivans are not attempting to expand the statute of limitations based upon a subsequent, unrelated trip to the hospital. Michelle received continuing and ongoing care until March 6 when she was discharged. Accordingly, we find the Sullivans’ two assignments of error have merit and are therefore sustained.”
Source Sullivan v. Mercy Health, 2022-Ohio-4445.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of negligent credentialing in Ohio or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the legal advice of an Ohio medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may assist you in investigating your negligent credentialing claim and represent you or your loved one in a negligent credentialing case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us on our toll-free line in the United States (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing to help you with your negligent credentialing claim.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.