 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKoy v. Furlong8/6/1990
one hundred eighty days after the notice is so given."
The presence of cancer was clearly confirmed in November 1985, which appellants claim is the time at which their cause of action accrued. On October 30, 1986, appellants extended the limitation period by serving written notice upon appellee that they were considering bringing an action upon their claim. Appellee contended that Patty McKoy, if a reasonable person, would have been aware of her condition long before November 1985. In determining the accrual date of a resulting injury when applying the statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.11, the facts of each particular case must be examined to make the following determinations: when the injured party became aware, or should have become aware, of the extent and seriousness of the condition; whether the injured party was aware, or should have been aware, that the condition was related to a specific medical service previously rendered; and whether such condition would put a reasonable person on notice of the neesfor further inquiry as to the cause of such condition. Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1, 516 N.E.2d 204; Allenius v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93.
In Pump v. Fox (1961), 113 Ohio App. 150, 157, 17 O.O.2d 129, 132, 177 N.E.2d 520, 525, the Sandusky County Court of Appeals held that a trial court erroneously granted a directed verdict in a medical malpractice action where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions or draw different inferences upon issues of fact related to a statute of limitations question. In such a situation, a directed verdict should be denied and the issue submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions. Although this decision dealt with the issue as to whether the physician-patient relationship had terminated more than one year prior to the commencement of the action, similar judgments have been reversed on other issues related to the statute of limitations question. See Fisher v. Deerhake (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 139, 534 N.E.2d 930 (summary judgment should not be granted on the basis of the statute of limitations where the record is insufficient to conclusively establish when the patient discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence; should have discovered, any improper diagnosis or treatment by the defendant).
Although the statute of limitations is normally a question for the court, it was proper to submit the issue to the jury given the presence of conflicting evidence as to whether Patty McKoy, if a reasonable person, should have or would have discovered her problem long before November 1985. In any event, we cannot determine whether the jury's general verdict was based upon appellants' failure to meet the applicable limitations period or was predicated upon the absence of negligence by appellee. We accordingly conclude that the second assignment of error is without merit and we hereby overrule the same.
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon as heretofore set forth, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order herein appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
JONES, P.J., KOEHLER and William W. YOUNG, JJ., concur.
|