I Take it Back: Ohio’s Medical Claims Statute of Repose is Not a True Statute of Repose: The Tolling Statute Applies to It

Two years ago, I wrote a blog regarding Ohio’s medical claims statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419, 2020-Ohio-6827, 173 N.E.3d 448. Wilson held that Ohio’s Savings Statute (R.C. 2305.19) did not apply to medical claims that were re-filed after the statute of repose for the claims had passed. The Ohio Supreme Court stated in Wilson that “R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose that, except as expressly stated in R.C. 2305.113(C) and (D), clearly and unambiguously precludes the commencement of a medical claim more than four years after the occurrence of the alleged act or omission that forms the basis of the claim.” Id. at ¶ 38 (Emphasis added). On December 6, 2022, (almost precisely two years from the decision in Wilson, and notwithstanding Wilson), the Ohio Supreme Court rendered its decision in Elliot v. Durrani, 2022-Ohio-4190, where it held that Ohio’s tolling statute (R.C. 2305.15) actually applies to the medical claims statute of repose. Thus, I have to take it back (and so does the Ohio Supreme Court). Ohio’s medical claims statute of repose is not a true statute of repose, in that, in the Court’s view, the tolling statute can allow a claim that is otherwise barred by the language of the statute of repose to proceed.