In Ohio, pursuant to R.C. 2305.113(A), the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is one year. There is an exception provided in R.C. 2305.113(B), which extends that one-year limitation another six months, if the plaintiff sends all potential defendants a letter advising the defendants, that the plaintif is considering bringing an action upon an identified claim. Typically, the letter must be actually received within the one-year period in which the plaintiff discovered or was aware of the medical malpractice claim, and must state that the plaintiff is considering legal action. Last week in Wade v. Lima Memorial Hospital, the Third District concluded that the plaintiff's 180 day letter was insufficient to extend the statute of limitations, rendering her lawsuit untimely, because the 180 day letter did not provide the requisite and was not addressed to all defendants.
In Wade, the plaintiff suffered injuries from a dog bite. The plaintiff alleged that a delay in the emergency room treatment led to two conditions, compartment syndrome and pastuerellosis, which required the amputation of her lower left leg. Plaintiff's procedural problem arose because the courts considered her 180 day letter insufficient to put both Lima Memorial and the treating doctor on notice of her intent to pursue a medical malpractice action. Although the letter mentioned that the plaintiff spoke with the attorney about the possibility of a medical malpractice claim, the letter sought an appointment with someone from the hospital to discuss the matter. According to the Third District, this failed to notify Lima Memorial that the plaintiff was considering filing a medical malpractice action. It's a close call based on the fact the letter mentioned the potential action, as the dissenting judge recognized. The court was unanimous, however, that the letter only addressed the hospital and not the treating doctor. The 180 day letter must be sent to all potential defendants.
The better practice, especially in light of this decision, is to be precise about the purpose of the180 day letter. The Third District characterized the letter as a request for an appointment. It's hard to speculate about hypothetical outcomes, but had the letter expressly reference R.C. 2305.113(B), it might have pushed the remaining panel members to accepting the letter as sufficient as against the hospital. The 180 letter is an important tool to provide additional time to look into potential claims before filing. It can be a double-edge sword because the sufficiency of the letter cannot be judicial tested until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. It's therefore imperative that the letter meets the R.C. 2305.113(B) requirements of being sent to all potential defendants, before the expiration of the original one-year statute of limitations, and express the plaintiff's intent to file a medical malpractice claim within the next 180 days.
