R.C. 2305.11(A) Interpretation
In Frysinger v. Leech (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 38, 512 N.E.2d 337, paragraph one of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, under R.C. 2305.11(A), the predecessor to R.C. 2305.113(A), "a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues and the one-year statute of limitations commences to run:
(a) when the patient discovers or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury;
(b) when the physician-patient relationship for that condition terminates, whichever occurs later."
Ohio courts continue to cite this same definition of "accrued" as a beginning point when determining timeliness under R.C. 2305.113(A). See, e.g., Kubitz v. Kalb, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1061, 2008 Ohio 4129, P20; Patterson, at P11; Shade v. Bleser, 2d Dist. No. 20938, 2005 Ohio 6544, P10; Dobrovich v. Kaiser Permanente, 8th Dist. No. 84819, 2005 Ohio 2444, P9.
Over many years, the Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified and provided an analysis for determining whether and when a patient discovered or should have discovered the injury, i.e., when a cognizable event has occurred. See, e.g., Akers v. Alonzo, 65 Ohio St.3d 422, 425, 1992 Ohio 66, 605 N.E.2d 1; Allenius v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 133-34, 538 N.E.2d 93; Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1, 5-6, 516 N.E.2d 204.