The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the deadline for filing a lawsuit against a physician who moves out of state can be extended. This decision was based on a prior version of state law, allowing more time to file lawsuits while the individual remains out of state.
Dr. Sataya Acharya, who moved to Pennsylvania, argued that this extension violated her federal constitutional rights. She claimed that by living and working outside Ohio, she remained subject to being sued in Ohio indefinitely, unlike doctors residing in the state who face a four-year limit after providing medical care.
Justice Melody Stewart, writing for the majority, explained that although the Eleventh District Court of Appeals sided with Acharya by finding the statute unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, the law was upheld as constitutional under a balancing test crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The statute's benefits were found to outweigh its burden on medical providers who relocate.
Justice Stewart noted changes to the tolling statute by the General Assembly effective October 2024, affecting how it applies to those leaving Ohio.
Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters joined Justice Stewart’s opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only. Justice Michael P. Donnelly dissented and would have dismissed the appeal as improvidently accepted.
The case involves Claudia Kennedy suing Western Reserve Senior Care and Dr. Acharya for wrongful death due to alleged substandard care provided to Donald Gerres at Western Reserve Senior Care before his death in 2013.
Kennedy initially filed her lawsuit within four years but voluntarily dismissed it in 2019 before refiling in 2020. The healthcare providers sought dismissal based on a "statute of repose," which limits claims beyond four years from an alleged error.
Kennedy argued that because she originally filed within this period, another law allowed her to refile within a year after dismissal. However, following an Ohio Supreme Court decision limiting such extensions through dismissal and refiling, her case was dismissed but later appealed successfully regarding Dr. Acharya's out-of-state status delaying deadlines under R.C. 2305.15(A).
The Eleventh District previously found that applying this statute violated Acharya's constitutional rights based on interstate commerce burdens cited in Bendix Autolite Corp v Midwestco Ents Inc., involving similar tolling issues for corporations.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether applying this tolling statute constituted unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce using a two-part test from past rulings on dormant commerce clause implications.
Ultimately finding no substantial burden akin to Bendix since Acharya is not conducting business across states like corporations do; rather serving locally wherever practicing medicine - hence ruling allows pursuing suits despite relocations without infringing economic protections between states involved