Thompson v. Community Mental Health Ctrs. of Warren Cty., Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-79,94-79
• Citation: 642 N.E.2d 1102,71 Ohio St.3d 194
• Parties: THOMPSON, Appellee, v. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS OF WARREN COUNTY, INC. et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 194

71 Ohio St.3d 194

642 N.E.2d 1102

THOMPSON, Appellee, v. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS OF WARREN COUNTY, INC. et al., Appellants.

No. 94-79.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Oct. 26, 1994.

Decided Dec. 14, 1994.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

A cause of action arising from the claimed negligence of a licensed independent social worker, a licensed psychologist or a licensed mental health care facility is not a claim for malpractice and is therefore not governed by R.C. 2305.11.

From July 21, 1989 until November 3, 1989, plaintiff-appellee, Linda Thompson, received treatment for emotional and mental problems from defendants-appellants, Community Mental Health Centers of Warren County, Inc. ("CMHC"), William J. Malone, and Russell W. Dern, Ph.D. CMHC is a licensed mental health facility. Malone, a licensed independent social worker, and Dern, a licensed psychologist, are both employees of CMHC.

More than one year after her treatment terminated, Thompson filed suit against appellants alleging various theories of negligence in her care and treatment that proximately resulted in emotional and physical injury. Upon appellants' motion, the trial court dismissed Thompson's claims for psychological and emotional injury, finding them to be time barred by R.C. 2305.11(A). The court of appeals reversed, holding that claims against mental health care providers do not fall within the one-year statute of limitations for malpractice actions.

The appellate court, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Nowlin v. Northeast Community Mental Health Ctr. (Apr. 9, 1992), No. 60284, unreported, 1992 WL 74327, certified the record of the cause to this court for review and final determination.

Thomas J. Leksan, Cincinnati, for appellee.

Lindhorst & Dreidame and Leo J. Breslin, Cincinnati, for appellants.

MOYER, Chief Justice.

The question certified by the court of appeals is " * * * whether the term 'malpractice' should, for purposes of determining the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(A), be defined narrowly as at common law or broadly to encompass other types of professional negligence." The issue we decide is whether the negligent acts of a nonphysician who provides mental health care constitute malpractice under R.C. 2305.11(A).

It is well-established common law of Ohio that malpractice is limited to the negligence of physicians and attorneys. Thirty years ago we recognized the distinction between common notions of malpractice and its common-law legal definition when we wrote: "[T]he term, malpractice, is sometimes used loosely to refer to the negligence of a member of any professional group. However, legally and technically, it is still subject to the limited common-law definition. It is well established that where a statute uses a word which has a definite meaning at common law, it will be presumed to be used in that sense and not in the loose popular sense." Richardson v. Doe (1964), 176 Ohio St. 370, 372-373, 27 O.O.2d 345, 347, 199 N.E.2d 878, 880, citing Grogan v. Garrison (1875), 27 Ohio St. 50, 63. We further observed in Richardson that in 1894, when the General Assembly amended the one-year statute of limitations to include malpractice actions, the legal definition of "malpractice" was limited to negligence on the part of doctors and attorneys. Id., 176 Ohio St. at 372, 27 O.O.2d at 347, 199 N.E.2d at 880.

Since that time, we have repeatedly declined to extend the definition of malpractice when presented with claims concerning other professions. See Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176, 546 N.E.2d 206, and cases cited therein. In these cases, we have reasoned that the General Assembly was aware of the common-law definition of malpractice and until the statute is amended to specifically include other professions, the common-law definition limits the scope of the statute. Therefore, causes of action for malpractice are limited to actions...