414 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 1980), 80-8, Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital and Medical Center

Docket Nº80-8.
Citation414 N.E.2d 406, 64 Ohio St.2d 36
Opinion JudgeSWEENEY, J.
Party NameVANCE et al., Appellants, v. ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellees.
AttorneyGoldberg, Williams, Jilek & Lafferty and David R. Goldberg, Toledo, for appellants. Messrs. Goldberg, Williams, Jilek & Lafferty, and Mr. David R. Goldberg, for appellants., Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Mr. Robert M. Anspach, and Mr. Dennis P. Witherell, for appellees.
Judge PanelCELEBREZZE, C. J., WILLIAM B. BROWN, PAUL W. BROWN, LOCHER, HOLMES and DOWD, JJ., concur.
Case DateNovember 26, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Ohio

Page 406

414 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 1980)

64 Ohio St.2d 36

VANCE et al., Appellants,

v.

ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellees.

No. 80-8.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

November 26, 1980

Syllabus by the Court

A minor of 10 years of age or older must file a medical malpractice action within the time limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(A) and (B), notwithstanding R.C. 2305.16.

On March 30, 1978, Marcella Vance and her mother, Doris Vance, appellants herein, filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County against St. Vincent Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter St. Vincent Hospital) and William J. Meyer, M.D. In the first count of the complaint Marcella Vance alleged that she had been born on October 17, 1958; that during the months of April, May and June, 1976, she had been a patient of Dr. Meyer in St. Vincent Hospital; that she had sustained injuries as the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the agents and employees of the hospital, and the negligence and malpractice of Dr. Meyer; and that those injuries had aggravated and increased to the level of a permanent impairment. She further alleged that within one year after her 18th birthday she had served written notice upon the defendants that she was contemplating bringing an action against them. In the second count, Doris Vance incorporated her daughter's allegations and claimed that she had incurred medical expenses for her daughter while she was a minor and had suffered a loss of her daughter's services, all presumably as a result of the defendants' actions.

By answer, defendants admitted that Marcella Vance had been a patient of Dr. Meyer from April 2, 1976, to April 16, 1976, pursuant to staff patient assignment at the hospital; that she again had been a patient at the hospital from April 21, 1976, to June 21, 1976; that she had been born on October 17, 1958, and that within one year of her eighteenth birthday she [64 Ohio St.2d 37] had served written notice on them of possible litigation. The remainder of the complaint was denied. The defendants prayed that the complaint be dismissed as plaintiffs' action was barred by the medical malpractice statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.11).

Thereafter the defendants moved, pursuant to Civ.R. 56, for entry of summary judgment in their favor for the reason that the action was not filed within the limitations period.

Page 407

The Court of Common Pleas held oral argument on the motion and entered judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision.

The cause is before this court upon allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Goldberg, Williams, Jilek & Lafferty and David R. Goldberg, Toledo, for appellants.

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Robert M. Anspach, and Dennis P. Witherell, Toledo, for appellees.

SWEENEY, Justice.

Resolution of this cause is dependent upon interpretation of the medical malpractice statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.11, as amended in July, 1975, by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 682, and of its effect on potential malpractice plaintiffs who are minors over the age of 10. 1 [64 Ohio St.2d 38]

The parties disagree as to the effect of that part of R.C. 2305.11(B) which reads:

"The limitations in this section for filing such a malpractice action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital apply to all persons regardless of legal disability and notwithstanding section 2305.16 of the Revised Code * * *." 2

Appellants argue that this language refers only to the four-year limitations period contained in the remainder of R.C. 2305.11(B). They contend that this provision has no effect on the one-year limitations period of R.C. 2305.11(A). Under their interpretation, R.C. 2305.16 continues to toll the running of the one-year limitations period until a minor reaches the age of 18. Appellants concede that pursuant to R.C. 2305.11(B), R.C. 2305.16 could not "save" a minor's cause of action for a period longer than four years from the alleged malpractice. 3 Pursuant to appellants' argument, the cause herein was timely because it was filed within one year from Marcella Vance's eighteenth birthday and prior to the expiration of four years "after the act or omission constituting the alleged malpractice."

Conversely, appellees argue that R.C. 2305.11(B) negates in full any tolling effect of R.C. 2305.16 in medical malpractice actions and other actions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984), 17141, Kenyon v. Hammer
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 19 Septiembre 1984
    ...case as legal authority, but only as secondary authority for the statistics cited. [12] Schwan overrules Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital, 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 414 N.E.2d 406 (1980); but see Opalko v. Marymount Hosp., Inc., 9 Ohio St.3d 63, 458 N.E.2d 847 (1984) (saving the remainder of the statu......
  • 502 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 1986), 86-120, Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div.
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 19 Diciembre 1986
    ...(1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 163, 285 N.E.2d 714 [60 O.O.2d 117], paragraph three of the syllabus; Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 41, 414 N.E.2d 406 [18 O.O.3d 216], fn. 8, overruled on other grounds, Schwan v. Riverside Methodist Hospital (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 300, 452 N.E......
  • 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986), 85-688, Mominee v. Scherbarth
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 22 Diciembre 1986
    ...been presented with a number of various challenges to R.C. 2305.11(B) as it applies to minors. In Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 414 N.E.2d 406 [18 O.O.3d 216], we were first asked to interpret the new statutory language. The question presented in Vance was whether ......
  • 512 N.E.2d 626 (Ohio 1987), 86-1448, Hardy v. VerMeulen
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 12 Agosto 1987
    ...with respect to malpractice litigants who are minors." [6] In Schwan, supra, we overruled Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 18 O.O.3d 216, 414 N.E.2d 406. In Vance, this court upheld R.C. 2305.11(B) as applied to a minor who had discovered her injury. It is notewo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • 688 P.2d 961 (Ariz. 1984), 17141, Kenyon v. Hammer
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 19 Septiembre 1984
    ...case as legal authority, but only as secondary authority for the statistics cited. [12] Schwan overrules Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital, 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 414 N.E.2d 406 (1980); but see Opalko v. Marymount Hosp., Inc., 9 Ohio St.3d 63, 458 N.E.2d 847 (1984) (saving the remainder of the statu......
  • 502 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 1986), 86-120, Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div.
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 19 Diciembre 1986
    ...(1972), 31 Ohio St.2d 163, 285 N.E.2d 714 [60 O.O.2d 117], paragraph three of the syllabus; Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 41, 414 N.E.2d 406 [18 O.O.3d 216], fn. 8, overruled on other grounds, Schwan v. Riverside Methodist Hospital (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 300, 452 N.E......
  • 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986), 85-688, Mominee v. Scherbarth
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 22 Diciembre 1986
    ...been presented with a number of various challenges to R.C. 2305.11(B) as it applies to minors. In Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 414 N.E.2d 406 [18 O.O.3d 216], we were first asked to interpret the new statutory language. The question presented in Vance was whether ......
  • 512 N.E.2d 626 (Ohio 1987), 86-1448, Hardy v. VerMeulen
    • United States
    • Ohio United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 12 Agosto 1987
    ...with respect to malpractice litigants who are minors." [6] In Schwan, supra, we overruled Vance v. St. Vincent Hospital (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 36, 18 O.O.3d 216, 414 N.E.2d 406. In Vance, this court upheld R.C. 2305.11(B) as applied to a minor who had discovered her injury. It is notewo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results