Skip to main content

Rose v. Tievsky

Citations

  • 2021 Ohio 3051

Syllabus

Appellant's claims were medical claims under R.C. 2305.113(E)(3), and were not claims for bodily injury due to exposure to hazardous or toxic chemicals or claims for negligence. As a result, the trial court correctly held that the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.113(A) applied. The trial court also did not err in fixing the date upon which appellant's cause of action accrued, which was several years before appellant refiled the medical claims at issue in this action. Furthermore, appellant could not salvage his claims based on tolling under R.C. 2305.113(C) and R.C. 2305.16, because there were no genuine issues of material of fact concerning whether appellant was of unsound mind when the cause of action accrued or thereafter. The trial court incorrectly found that appellant's medical claims were barred because he failed to refile them until 21 months after the original claims were dismissed, and that, as a result, the requirements of the savings statute in R.C. 2305.19(A) were not satisfied. However, this error was harmless because R.C. 2305.19(A) did not apply under the circumstances of this case insofar as appellant's claims were barred by R.C. 2305.113(C). Specifically, R.C. 2305.113(C) is a statute of repose that bars any medical claims that are not filed within four years after the acts or omissions causing an injury. A plaintiff, therefore, may not take advantage of the savings statute in R.C. 2305.19(A) to refile a medical claim after the applicable one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.113(A) has expired if the four-year statute of repose for medical claims has also expired. Here, appellant's claims were barred because the one-year statute of limitations and the four-year repose period had both expired before he refiled his complaint. Consequently, the savings provision in R.C. 2305.19(A) could not apply at all, even if the refiling had been timely under that statute. The trial court also did not err in dismissing appellant's action becau

Judges: Welbaum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Rose v. Tievsky

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.