OH: patient failed to timely file suit v. hospital: one year statute of limitations barred...

CASE FACTS: On December 20, 2004, James Davis filed suit against Upper Valley Medical Center and "Jane Doe", alleging that on December 18, 2002, Davis suffered severe burns to his lower back which proximately resulted from the negligent act or omission of Jane Doe, a.k.a. "Nicole," who was then an employee in the hospital's physical therapy department. In its answer, the hospital asserted the state's one year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense for medical and hospital malpractice claims. On July 7, 2005, the trial court issued a scheduling order that, inter alia, established a trial date and set February 14, 2006, as the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment. The hospital filed its motion for summary judgment on September 20, 2005, on the gouneds that Davis failed to file his claim within the one-year statute of limitations. Davis did not respond to the motion. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment. Davis appealed.

COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court held, inter alia, that Davis could not demonstrate that he had a meritorious claim if relief was granted, because the statute of limitations had run on his claim against the hospital. The court observed that Davis argued that his claim should have been subject to a two-year statute of limitations rather than a one-year statute of limitations. However, the court noted that Davis failed to cite any authority for his position. Further, the court observed that Davis argued that the statue of limitations in effect on the date of the filing of his case was not the statute that was in effect at the time he sustained his injury. However, again he failed to cite any authority in support of his position. The court hinted that if Davis had presented any evidence demonstrating that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to when the statute of limitations began to run, the court might have decided otherwise. Editor's Note: In reading the case, one gets the impression that Davis may have represented himself. Consequently, one wonders whether had Davis been represented by experienced counsel, he might have proceeded differently and the outcome of the case might have been different. However, in an effort to determine whether Davis was represented by an attorney and consequently learn the identity of the attorney, it was surprising to learn that although Davis represented himself the court records indicated that Davis was, in fact, an attorney who was licensed to practice in Ohio. Didn't Davis hear that: "He who represents himself may have a fool for a client"? Davis v. Upper Valley Med. Ctr., 2007 Ohio 1332 N.E.2d--OH

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.