 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edens v. Barberton Area Family Practice Ctr.6/14/1989
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) provides that a medical malpractice claim must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrued. However, if prior to the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations, a claimant gives written notice to a potential defendant that he is considering bringing an action based on the alleged claim, then the claimant has one hundred eighty days after such notice is given to commence his action. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) reads as follows:
"* * * An action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim shall be commenced within one year after the action accrued, except that, if prior to the expiration of that one-year period, a claimant who allegedly possesses a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim gives to the person who is the subject of that claim written notice that the claimant is considering bringing an action upon the claim, that action may be commenced against the person notified at any time within one hundred eighty days after the notice is so given." (Emphasis added.)
Hence, R.C. 2305.11(B) affords a party the possibility of extending the one-year statute of limitations for a medical, dental, optometric or chiropractic claim. The purpose of this statute is to decrease the likelihood of frivolous medical malpractice claims by allowing parties and their attorneysadditional time to investigate a potential claim which is brought to their attention shortly before the one-year statute of limitations expires. See Glenboski v. St. Alexis Hospital (1979), 65 Ohio App.2d 165, 168, 19 O.O. 3d 122, 124, 417 N.E. 2d 108, 111; Recent Cases, Practice and Procedure--Statute of Limitations--Medical Malpractice (1981), 10 Cap. U. L. Rev. 909, 910; Notes, Ohio's Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice (1977), 38 Ohio St. L. J. 125, 140-141; Ripps, The Ohio Medical Malpractice Statute: An Analysis (1977), 4 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 24, 27.
R.C. 2305.11(B) does not toll the one-year statute of limitations by one hundred eighty days. Instead it is an exception to the one-year limitations period by allowing a claimant to bring an action within one hundred eighty days of giving notice pursuant to R.C. 2305.11(B). Once such notice is given, the claimant in most instances will have one hundred eighty days from the notice date to commence the action. If an R.C. 2305.11(B) notice is given one hundred eighty days or more the one-year statute of limitations period, prior to the end of the then the claimant has only one year from the accrual date of cause of action in which to bring the claim. If a one-hundred- eighty-day notice is not given, then, of course, the one-year statute of limitations controls the filing of the complaint. See Glenboski, supra; Hughes, supra.
In the instant case, it appears that appellants' treatment of appellee continued through February 18, 1986. Thus, appellee would have had one year from this date in which to commence his action. However, because appellee prior to the expiration of the one-year limitations period gave written notice to appellants that he was considering bringing an action upon his alleged malpractice claim, he had one hundred eighty days from the date he gave written notice in which to commence the action.
The parties to this action disagree as to when appellee actually "gave" notice. Appellants argue that notice is given when it is mailed. Appellee on the other hand contends that notice is given when received. Thus the precise issue before this court is whether notice pursuant to R.C. 2305.11(B) is effective on the date it is mailed or on the date it is received.
R.C. 2305.11(B) has not been unifo
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|