Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio's medical-malpractice statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), is constitutional and applies to both vested and nonvested claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' malpractice claims were barred because the second state-court complaint was filed more than four years after the alleged malpractice, and neither Ohio's saving statute nor 28 U.S.C. 1367 applied. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose that applies to both vested and nonvested medical-malpractice claims; any action based on the alleged act or omission must be commenced within four years.
2. R.C. 2305.113(C) is constitutional even when it extinguishes a vested medical-malpractice cause of action.
3. A complaint dismissed without prejudice is legally deemed never to have existed, so the Antoons' second state-court complaint—not their dismissed 2010 complaint—commenced the malpractice action for purposes of R.C. 2305.113(C).
4. Neither statute preserved the Antoons' claims on the facts presented. The federal qui tam action was not substantially the same as the state malpractice action, and the malpractice claims were never pending in federal court because the district court denied leave to add them and declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ohio's medical-malpractice statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), applies to claims that vested before the four-year repose period expired.
2. Whether R.C. 2305.113(C) is constitutional under Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it bars a vested medical-malpractice claim.
3. Whether Ohio's saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), or the federal supplemental-jurisdiction tolling statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), preserved or tolled the Antoons' malpractice claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded