In Ohio, a medical malpractice plaintiff must commence a medical-claim action within one year after the cause of action accrued. R.C. 2305.113(A). Under Civ.R. 3(A), “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, if service is obtained within one year from such filing upon a named defendant . . . or upon a defendant identified by a fictitious name whose name is later corrected pursuant to Civ.R. 15(D).”
When a plaintiff can identify a defendant, but does not know the defendant’s name, Civ.R. 15(D) provides the mechanism by which the plaintiff may obtain a summons and personally serve the defendant and preserve the claim against the defendant: “When the plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, that defendant may be designated in a pleading or proceeding by any name and description. When the name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly. The plaintiff, in such case, must aver in the complaint the fact that he could not discover the name. The summons must contain the words “name unknown,” and a copy thereof must be served personally upon the defendant.”
Civ.R. 15(D) may not be construed to extend the statute of limitations beyond the time period established by the General Assembly. Instead, Civ.R. 15(D) is designed with the limited purpose of accommodating a plaintiff who has identified an allegedly culpable party but does not know the name of that party at the time of filing a complaint.
If a plaintiff complies with the requirements of Civ.R. 15(D), the amended complaint will relate back to the filing of the original complaint, and the action will have been timely commenced under Civ.R. 3(A). However, Civ.R. 15(D) does not authorize a claimant to designate defendants using fictitious names as placeholders in a complaint filed within the statute-of-limitations period and then identify, name, and personally serve those defendants after the limitations period has elapsed.
In an Ohio medical malpractice case decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio on October 23, 2025, the defendants had argued that R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) requires a plaintiff to comply with the service requirements found in Civ.R. 15(D). They argued that R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) provide a 180-day extension only for newly discovered defendants. Under this reading, the 180-day extension would be limited to defendants whose names and identities were entirely unknown when the original complaint was filed.
While the text of R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) unambiguously requires a plaintiff to amend her complaint pursuant to rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not specify any particular divisions of the rule that must be followed. Logically, a plaintiff must comply with only those provisions in Civ.R. 15 that apply to the case. The question, then, is whether Civ.R. 15(D)’s mechanism for correcting the name of a party designated by a fictitious name applies to an amendment that introduces an additional defendant.
The Supreme Court of Ohio stated that “additional” defendants in R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) are not the same as the unnamed defendants under Civ.R. 15(D), and so Civ.R. 15(D) does not apply. R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) contain no requirements tied to the plaintiff’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of a defendant’s name or identity when the original complaint was filed. A defendant introduced in an amended complaint under R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) need only be “additional,” that is, a defendant not identified in the original complaint. So unlike Civ.R. 15(D), a plaintiff may use
R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) to add a defendant regardless of whether the defendant’s name or identity (or both) was known at the inception of the action.
On the other hand, R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) may not be used by a plaintiff to join a defendant who was already properly included in the original complaint under Civ.R. 15(D). Including a fictitiously named person in a complaint
does not create a placeholder that may later be replaced with a new, accurately named defendant. A person identified under Civ.R. 15(D) is already a defendant, which is why an amendment under Civ.R. 15(D) changes a party’s name and not the party. Someone who was already a party-defendant in the original complaint cannot be an “additional” defendant under R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2).
“Recognizing that fictitiously named defendants under Civ.R. 15(D) do not fall under “additional” defendants in R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) preserves the 180-day extension in R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) from the superfluity that would
otherwise occur under a contrary interpretation. If a plaintiff obtained a summons with the words “name unknown” for an unnamed defendant and then personally served the summons on the unnamed defendant, as required by Civ.R. 15(D), then the amended complaint would relate back to the original filing, as explained above. The commencement of the action would thus be timely. The 180-day extension in R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) would be unnecessary.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded: “We reject Patel and Mid-Ohio’s propositions of law and hold that R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) does not require a plaintiff to comply with Civ.R. 15(D) to name additional defendants in an amended complaint and that the 180-day extension under R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) is not limited to newly discovered defendants
following initial discovery. A plaintiff seeking to avail herself of the 180-day extension under R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) must still, per R.C. 2323.451(D)(1), comply with the requirements to amend a complaint under the applicable provisions of
Civ.R. 15. Because Patel and Mid-Ohio were “additional” defendants under R.C. 2323.451(D)(1) and (2) and because Lewis properly amended her complaint to join them as defendants in her medical-claim action, the 180-day extension applied and her action against Patel and Mid-Ohio was timely commenced. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals.”
Source Lewis v. MedCentral Health Sys., Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4802.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical negligence 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 investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice 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 medical malpractice claim.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
