Law Commons^™

Medical Malpractice - Statute Of Limitations - Foreign Objects - The Adoption Of The Discovery Rule - Legislative Or Judicial Prerogative? Melnyk V. Cleveland Clinic, Alan J. Sobol

Akron Law Review

The rationale of the Court was that Melnyk could be distinguished with the recent case of Wyler v. Tripi, which held that a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues at the latest when the physician-patient relationship terminates, and which also recognized the legislature's authority to act in this area, on the basis that Wyler was not a foreign object case. Therefore, the Court felt it need not disturb the Wyler holding and could nevertheless hold the failure to remove the foreign objects in Melnyk was negligence as a matter of law and that equity and public policy require …

Congress Takes A Look At A No-Fault Proposal For Medical Malpractice: Some Observations, David E. Beitzel

Akron Law Review

EVEN A CURSORY GLANCE at the news media in the recent past indicates that problems in the area of medical malpractice are rising to turbulent heights. For example, newspapers are increasingly printing long and passionate letters-to-the-editor dispraising numerous circumstances and individual types, which are allegedly the cause of the problem. The primary development, which caused the initiation of this storm, is the rising premium rate for medical malpractice insurance.' The pinch on the physician's pocketbook has resulted in outcries of frustration and anger from the medical community. Objects of these attacks have included the insurance industry, the legal profession, and …

Wrongful Life, Turpin V. Sortini, Janet A. Laufer

Akron Law Review

In the past fifteen years, several state appellate courts have considered wrongful birth and wrongful life causes of action. While the modern trend is to allow wrongful birth causes of action, few courts have permitted wrongful life actions to be maintained. On May 3, 1982, the California Supreme Court, in Turpin v. Sortini became the first state high court to allow a wrongful life cause of action. This casenote will examine the reasoning of the Turpin court in allowing the wrongful life claim. While Turpin appears to signal a new trend in this area of tort law, there is little …

Ohio's Statute Of Limitations, Baird V. Loeffler, Amy L. O'Neil

Akron Law Review

The decision in Baird v. Loeffler is another victory for physicians and medical malpractice insurers. It will not be well accepted by plaintiff's attorneys or by others who advocate the rights of patients, especially minors, to be compensated for injuries sustained by them due to a physician's negligence. The case focuses on an amendment to the Ohio Medical Malpractice Statute which became effective July 28, 1975. The issue in Baird is the proper statutory construction that should be given to the statute where a minor's cause of action arose prior to the effective date of the statute. In effect, the …

The Unconstitutionality Of Ohio's Medical Malpractice Statute Of Limitations: Minors And Equal Protection, Eric A. Brandt

Akron Law Review

As with all laws, statutes of limitations must apply equally to all persons unless reasonable grounds permit the legislating body to make distinctions between classes of persons affected by the law. Laws that operate unequally, unfairly and unreasonably when applied to the public are unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court addressed was the constitutionality of an Ohio medical malpractice statute of limitations in Schwan v. Riverside Methodist Hospital.

Welsh V. United States, The Sixth Circuit Gives A Physics Lesson - For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction, Daniel L. Bell

Akron Law Review

This casenote will review the facts of Welsh v. United States and present the current judicial approaches to spoliation of evidence in civil litigation. Second, the note will analyze the Welsh court's proposed solution to the spoliation problem. Finally, the note will discuss the use of the Welsh approach in litigation and management implications for health care facilities.

Statute Of Limitations In Ohio Medical Malpractice An Old Trend Returns And A New Trend Evolves, Sharon L. Dieringer

Akron Law Review

In Gaines v. Preterm Cleveland, Inc. the Ohio Supreme Court reversed prior law in two significant areas of medical malpractice.

First, the court held that, "a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action who reasonably did not discover the cause of their injuries until more than three years after the act constituting the alleged malpractice may not be constitutionally deprived of a full year to pursue a medical claim by virtue of the four-year statute of repose contained in R.C. 2305. II(B)."

Secondly, the court held that, "a positive misrepresentation of a patient's condition, upon which the patient reasonably relies …

The Struggle Over Tort Reform And The Overlooked Legacy Of The Progressives, Rachel M. Janutis

Akron Law Review

In attempting to distinguish the 1950s and 1960s tort expansion from the current tort retraction, the scholarly account depicts the tort expansion as primarily a judicial movement led by legal academics devoid of any self-interest. In contrast, this account holds out the current tort retraction as a mainly political movement driven by the economic self-interest of its proponents...First, contemporary tort reform, rather than solely being a reaction to tort expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, is part of a continuing debate between corporate, professional and insurance interests on one side and consumer interests and the trial bar on the other …

Using It For All It's Wuerth: A Critical Analysis Of National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh V. Wuerth As Applied To Medical Malpractice In Ohio, Christy L. Wesig

Akron Law Review

This essay discusses the application of this new limitation to the field of medical malpractice, the divergent results reached by Ohio’s appellate courts in the medical negligence and malpractice context since Wuerth, and the various treatments by other jurisdictions. This essay argues that the holding in Wuerth narrowly applies only to law firms, and that applying it to medical malpractice results in a reversal of the settled Ohio law and injustice for those injured by the negligence of medical professionals. Part II examines the history of hospital liability and traces the changes in vicarious liability up to the Wuerth decision. …