Ohio Supreme Court Holds Ohio’s Tolling Statute Does Not Violate Federal Commerce Clause as Applied to a Physician Who Leaves the State to Practice Medicine Elsewhere

The Ohio Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Ohio’s tolling statute, R.C. 2305.15, as it relates to a physician who was sued for medical malpractice. The physician, who is alleged to have wrongfully caused the death of a patient in 2013, moved from Ohio to Pennsylvania after the patient’s death. The suit was voluntarily dismissed but refiled in 2019, when the health care providers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ohio’s four-year statute of repose barred the refiling. The appellant contended that R.C. 2305.15 tolled the statute of repose because the physician had moved to Pennsylvania in the midst of this litigation. 

The court analyzed Ohio’s tolling statute under the two-tier approach established in Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 578-579, 106 S.Ct. 2080, 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986). First, they determined whether the law directly discriminates against interstate commerce. The court held it did not: “Nothing in the history of the tolling statute suggests that its enactment was motivated by a desire to undertake state economic protectionism.”

In the second tier of the analysis, the court applied a balancing test to determine whether the law impermissibly burdens interstate commerce. The appellees argued there are times where physicians cross state lines for legitimate business purposes, and Ohio’s tolling statute may dissuade them from traveling in or out of Ohio for fear of exposure to continuing legal liability. Yet, the court was not persuaded this is a common enough experience that interstate commerce would be noticeably affected. They held that Ohio’s tolling statute “does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that it is clearly excessive in relation to its putative local benefits.” 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}