Everhart v. Coshocton Cnty. Mem'l Hosp.
| Docket Number | 2022-0407,2022-0424 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | Everhart, Individually and as Admr. of the Estate of Everhart, Appellee, v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital et al.,Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
1
2023-Ohio-4670
Everhart, Individually and as Admr. of the Estate of Everhart, Appellee,
v.
Coshocton County Memorial Hospital et al.,Appellants.
Nos. 2022-0407, 2022-0424
Supreme Court of Ohio
December 28, 2023
Submitted February 28, 2023
Appeal from and Certified by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629.
Colley Shroyer & Abraham Co., L.P.A., and David I. Shroyer, for appellee.
Brant E. Poling and Zachary R. Hoover; and Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, L.L.C., and David L. Lester, for appellant Coshocton County Memorial Hospital.
Frederick A. Sewards and Patrick F. Smith; and Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, L.L.C., and David L. Lester, for appellant Mohamed Hamza.
Reminger Co., L.P.A., David H. Krause, Thomas N. Spyker, and Melvin Davis; and Taft Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., and Aaron M. Herzig, for appellant Joseph J. Mendiola.
The Mellino Law Firm L.L.C., and Calder Mellino; and Flowers & Grube, Louis E. Grube, Paul W. Flowers, and Melissa A. Ghrist, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice.
Reminger Co., L.P.A., Holly Marie Wilson, Brianna Marie Prislipsky, and Thomas A. Prislipsky, urging reversal for amicus curiae Thomas Keane.
Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.), L.L.P., Lauren S. Kuley, and G. Luke Burton, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio State Medical Association, and Ohio Osteopathic Association.
Sean McGlone, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Hospital Association.
Fischer, J.
{¶ 1} Once again, we are asked to analyze the medical-claim statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C), and once again, we hold that it means what it says. The broad definition of "medical claim" that applies to the statute of repose clearly and unambiguously includes wrongful-death claims based on medical care, and nothing in Ohio's statutory wrongful-death chapter negates their inclusion. Therefore, the statute of repose applies to such claims. Because the Tenth District Court of Appeals held otherwise, we reverse.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On December 21, 2003, Todd Everhart was involved in an automobile accident and was transported to Coshocton County Memorial Hospital ("Coshocton Hospital"). At the hospital, doctors took x-rays of Mr. Everhart's chest. Mr. Everhart was not admitted to Coshocton Hospital but was instead transferred by helicopter to the Ohio State University Medical Center. Later, appellant Joseph Mendiola, M.D. ("Dr. Mendiola"), who was working at Coshocton Hospital, read the chest x-rays and dictated a report noting a "focal area of increased opacity in the lateral aspect of the right upper lobe, which may represent a lung contusion." Dr. Mendiola's report was distributed to various departments and physicians in accordance with hospital procedures. Appellant Mohamed Hamza, M.D. ("Dr. Hamza"), was assigned as backup physician to Mr. Everhart. A backup physician was assigned to Coshocton Hospital emergency-room patients who otherwise had no primary-care provider, allowing the patient to contact that physician with any questions he or she had after discharge. Although Dr. Hamza was assigned as the backup physician, he denies ever receiving the x-rays. After a stay at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Mr. Everhart was discharged and recovered from his injuries.
{¶ 3} Nearly three years later, Mr. Everhart returned to Coshocton Hospital complaining of abdominal pain, blood in his urine, and a cough. Coshocton Hospital personnel performed a CT scan and took x-rays, which revealed a large mass in the right upper lobe of Mr. Everhart's right lung. Further testing established that he was suffering from advanced-stage lung cancer. Just two months later, Mr. Everhart died.
{¶ 4} On January 25, 2008, Mr. Everhart's wife, appellee, Machelle Everhart, filed a complaint in her individual capacity and as administrator of Mr. Everhart's estate against Coshocton Hospital, Dr. Hamza, and Dr. Mendiola, ("the Coshocton defendants") asserting claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death. Mrs. Everhart also included multiple other defendants who have since been dismissed from the case or are not parties to this appeal. Mrs. Everhart alleged, among other things, that the Coshocton defendants had deviated from the accepted standard of care when they failed to follow up on or inform Mr. Everhart of the lung opacity that was visible in the chest x-rays taken at Coshocton Hospital in 2003.
{¶ 5} Several years of litigation followed, including a separate appeal to the Tenth District, see 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-75, 2013-Ohio-2210. In 2017, the Coshocton defendants sought leave to file motions for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the lawsuit was barred by the four-year statute of repose for medical claims in R.C. 2305.113(C). The Coshocton defendants argued that before this court decided Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483, 2016-Ohio-7432, 71 N.E.3d 974, in 2016, it was unclear whether the statute of repose was applicable to claims that were filed within the statute of limitations. And because the Coshocton defendants did not include the statute of repose as an affirmative defense in their original answers, they also sought leave to file amended answers.
{¶ 6} On November 30, 2017, the trial court stayed proceedings in the case indefinitely based on Coshocton Hospital's involvement in pending bankruptcy
proceedings. The court reactivated the case in April 2019 and granted the Coshocton defendants' motions for leave to file amended answers and motions for leave to file motions for judgment on the pleadings in August 2020. Mrs. Everhart filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. In her motion, Mrs. Everhart argued that the amended complaint would support her argument that the defendants were not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on the medical-claims statute of repose because her claims were based on ongoing acts of negligence that occurred less than four years before she filed her first complaint. The court then denied Mrs. Everhart's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in December 2020, and it granted Dr. Mendiola's motion for judgment on the pleadings in January 2021.
{¶ 7} On appeal, the Tenth District held that the medical-claim statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) does not apply to wrongful-death claims, based partially on this court's decisions in Klema v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 170 Ohio St. 519, 166 N.E.2d 765 (1960), and Koler v. St. Joseph Hosp., 69 Ohio St.2d 477, 432 N.E.2d 821 (1982), in which this court held that wrongful-death claims are distinct from medical-malpractice claims. The Tenth District reversed the decision of the trial court on that basis and held that Mrs. Everhart's remaining assignment of error, which asserted that the trial court erred by denying her motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, was moot.
{¶ 8} The Tenth District certified a conflict between its decision in this case and three other appellate-court decisions. In Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 2018-Ohio-2441, 114 N.E.3d 1224 (3d Dist), and Mercer v. Keane, 2021-Ohio-1576, 172 N.E.3d 1101 (5th Dist.), the Third and Fifth District Courts of Appeals each determined that the medical-claim statute of repose does apply to wrongful-death claims based on the language of R.C. 2305.113 and this court's decisions in Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408, 2012-Ohio-5686, 983 N.E.2d 291 and Antoon. The Mercer court also relied on our decision in Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419, 2020-Ohio-6827, 173 N.E.3d 448.
In Martin v. Taylor, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-046, 2021-Ohio-4614, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals also held that the medical-claim statute of repose applies to wrongful-death claims based on the plain language of the statute.
{¶ 9} Coshocton Hospital and Dr. Hamza filed a notice of appeal to this court and notice of a certified conflict between the Tenth District's decision in this case and the decisions of the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Districts in Smith, Mercer, and Martin, respectively. Dr. Mendiola filed a separate notice of appeal and notice of a certified conflict. We determined that a conflict exists and also accepted Coshocton Hospital and Dr. Hamza's appeal and Dr. Mendiola's appeal. 167 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2022-Ohio-2162, 189 N.E.3d 816; 167 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2022-Ohio-2162, 189 N.E.3d 818. We sua sponte consolidated the two cases for briefing and ordered the parties to brief the conflict question certified by the Tenth District: "Does the statute of repose for medical claims, set forth under R.C. 2305.113(C), apply to statutory wrongful death claims?" See 167 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2022-Ohio-2162, 189 N.E.3d 816.
II. Standard of Review
{¶ 10} Statutory interpretation is an issue of law. State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175, ¶ 9. As an issue of law, we review this matter de novo. When interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself, and if the language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply it as written Id.; see also State v. Ashcraft, __Ohio St.3d__, 2022-Ohio-4611, __N.E.3d__, ¶ 7; Wilson v. Lawrence, 150 Ohio St.3d 368, 2017-Ohio-1410, 81 N.E.3d 1242, ¶ 11.
III. Analysis
A. Plain Language of R.C. 2305.113(C)'s Statute of Repose
{¶ 11} To determine which causes of action the medical-claim statute of repose applies to, we must look first to the language of the statute. R.C.
2305.113(C)(1) states: "No action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim shall be commenced more than four years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim." The statute goes on to broadly define "medical claim" as
any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatr...
To continue reading
Request your trial