McNeal v. Durrani

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 5351

Syllabus

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – STATUTE OF REPOSE – SAVINGS STATUTE: The trial court did not err in granting the medical defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints where the plaintiffs-patients' medical malpractice claims were filed outside the four-year window of the statute of repose and the savings statute did not operate to extend the repose period but the court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings to the medical defendants where the plaintiff-patient's initial complaint had been filed within the time limits of the statute of repose, because the savings statute saved the subsequent complaint. [See CONCURRENCE: The plain language of the statute of repose dictates whether plaintiffs' medical malpractice claims were untimely, and not the policy considerations set forth in Wilson v. Duranni, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180196 and C-180194, 2019-Ohio-3880, and Atwood v. UC Health, S.D.Ohio No. 1:16cv593, 2018 WL 3956766 (August 17, 2018).]The trial court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint where the trial court denied leave on futility grounds and amendment was futile because the claims were timed barred by the medical malpractice statute of repose.