Summary
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal of Toni Ewing’s survivorship, wrongful-death, and emotional-distress claims against UC Health and University of Cincinnati Medical Center. The court affirmed dismissal of the emotional-distress and survivorship claims, but held that the wrongful-death claim was governed by the two-year limitation period in R.C. 2125.02(D) and was not subject to the medical-claim statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C). The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings on the emotional-harm (negligent infliction of emotional distress) claim.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings on the survivorship claim based on the medical-claim statute of repose.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings on the wrongful-death claim based on the medical-claim statute of repose.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in dismissing the emotional-harm claim because the allegations of mere 'emotional harm' are insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a claim for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress, which requires 'serious,' 'severe and debilitating' emotional distress.
- The trial court did not err in dismissing the survivorship claim under the medical-claim statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) because the statute is constitutional and applies to both vested and nonvested claims, and the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani applied retroactively.
- The trial court erred in dismissing the wrongful-death claim based on the medical-claim statute of repose because a wrongful-death claim related to medical diagnosis, care, or treatment is governed solely by the period of limitation in R.C. 2125.02(D) and is not subject to the repose period in R.C. 2305.113(C).
Key quotations
““[A] cause of action for the negligent infliction of serious emotional distress may be stated where the plaintiff-bystander reasonably appreciated the peril which took place, whether or not the victim suffered actual physical harm, and, * * * as a result of this cognizance or fear of peril, the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress.”” ({¶7})
““ ‘Serious’ emotional distress must be ‘beyond trifling mental disturbance’ or ‘mere upset or hurt feelings.’ ... It must be ‘emotional injury which is both severe and debilitating.’ ”” ({¶7})
““the medical-claim statute of repose is constitutional ‘both when it extinguishes a vested and a nonvested cause of action.’ ”” ({¶11})
““The first is a claim for malpractice or personal injury, enforced either by the injured person herself or her representative in a survival action. ... The second is a wrongful death [sic] claim, enforced by the decedent’s personal representative on behalf of the decedent’s beneficiaries.”” ({¶13})
““Because each action is separate and independent from the other, the right to bring a wrongful-death action is not dependent on the existence of a separate cause of action held by the injured person prior to his or her death.”” ({¶13})
““Thus, the General Assembly clearly provided only one exception to the period of limitation set forth in R.C. 2125.02(D)(1) and that exception is only for wrongful-death claims related to products liability. The General Assembly provided no similar exception in R.C. 2125.02(D) for claims related to the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of the decedent.”” ({¶27})
Factual background
Toni Ewing filed a complaint against UC Health and University of Cincinnati Medical Center, LLC, alleging medical malpractice related to the inpatient stay and death of her mother, Shirley Ewing. The complaint included a survivorship claim, a wrongful-death claim, and an emotional-harm claim. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting the claims were barred by the medical-claim statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) and that the emotional-harm claim failed as a matter of law.
Procedural history
Plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint alleging survivorship, wrongful-death, and emotional-harm claims. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing claims were barred by the medical-claim statute of repose. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appealed.
Remand instructions
The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the law, specifically to allow the wrongful-death claim to proceed if it was brought within the applicable two-year period of limitation found in R.C. 2125.02(D).