Thompson v. Community Mental Health Ctrs. of Warren Cty., Inc.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » Supreme Court » 1994 » Thompson v. Community Mental Health Ctrs. of Warren Cty., Inc.

State: Ohio

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: 1994-0079

Case Date: 12/14/1994

Plaintiff: Thompson

Defendant: Community Mental Health Ctrs. of Warren Cty., Inc.

Preview:4 Thompson, Appellee, v. Community Mental Health Centers of Warren County, Inc. et al., Appellants. [Cite as Thompson v. Community Mental Health Ctrs. of Warren Cty., Inc. (1994), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Statutes of limitations worker, -- Action against licensed independent mental R.C.

social

licensed psychologist, or

licensed

health care facility for negligence is not governed by 2305.11. A cause of action arising from the claimed negligence

of

a

licensed

independent social worker, a licensed psychologist

or a licensed mental health care facility is not a claim for malpractice and is therefore not governed by R.C. 2305.11. (No. 94-79 -- Submitted October 26, 1994 -- Decided December 14, 1994.) Certified by the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA92-08072. From appellee, mental Health Malone, health July 21, 1989 until November 3, 1989, plaintiffand

Linda Thompson, received treatment for from of defendants-appellants, County, Inc.

emotional

problems Centers and

Community

Mental J.

Warren

("CMHC"),

William

Russell W. Dern, Ph.D.

CMHC is a

licensed

mental worker,

facility.

Malone, a licensed independent social

and Dern, a licensed psychologist, are both employees of CMHC. More than one year after her treatment terminated, Thompson filed suit against appellants alleging various theories of

negligence in

in her care and treatment which proximately

resulted the and

emotional and physical injury. court

Upon appellants' motion, psychological

trial

dismissed Thompson's claims for

emotional 2305.11(A).

injury,

finding

them

to

be

time

barred

by

R.C. claims one-

The court of appeals reversed, holding that

against mental health care providers do not fall within the year statute of limitations for malpractice actions.

The appellate court, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County Nowlin App. in

v. Northeast Community Mental Health Ctr. (Apr. 9, 1992), No. 60284, unreported, 1992 WL 74327, certified the record

of the cause to this court for review and final determination. __________________ Thomas J. Leksan, for appellee. Lindhorst & Dreidame and Leo J. Breslin, for appellants. __________________ Moyer, C.J. is The question certified by the court of appeals

"* * * whether the term `malpractice' should, for purposes of the statute of limitations set forth in broadly The issue R.C. to we who R.C.

determining 2305.11(A),

be defined narrowly as at common law or

encompass other types of professional negligence." decide provides is whether mental the negligent acts of a

nonphysician under

health care constitute malpractice

2305.11(A). It is is well-established common law of Ohio that malpractice Thirty

limited to the negligence of physicians and attorneys

years ago we recognized the distinction between common notions of malpractice "[T]he the and its common-law legal definition when we wrote: to

term, malpractice, is sometimes used loosely to refer

negligence of a member of any professional group. and technically, it is still subject to the

However, limited

legally

common-law statute

definition.

It is well

established

that

where

a

uses a word which has a definite meaning at common

law,

it will be presumed to be used in that sense and not in the loose popular sense." 373, 27 Richardson v. Doe (1964), 176 Ohio St. 370, 372v. in the

O.O.2d 345, 347, 199 N.E.2d 878, 880, citing Grogan (1875), 27 Ohio St. 50, 63. We further observed amended

Garrison Richardson one-year the on legal

that in 1894, when the General Assembly

statute of limitations to include malpractice

actions,

definition of "malpractice" was limited to negligence Id., 176 Ohio St. at 372,

the part of doctors and attorneys.

27 O.O.2d at 347, 199 N.E.2d at 880. Since that time, we have repeatedly declined to extend definition other Ohio of malpractice when presented with claims the

concerning 46 In

professions. St.3d 176,

See Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 546 N.E.2d 206, and cases cited therein.

these cases, we have reasoned that the General Assembly was aware of the common-law definition of malpractice and until the statute is amended to specifically include other professions, the commonlaw definition limits the scope of the statute. Therefore, arising

causes from law

of action for malpractice are limited to actions

the negligence of attorneys and physicians under the common and those other professions expressly designated by the

General Assembly. Appellants express an argue that the 1987 amendments to R.C. by the General Assembly to 2305.11 the Prior

intent

expand

definition to "An

of malpractice beyond its common-law meaning.

October 20, 1987, R.C. 2305.11(A) provided in pertinent part: action for * * * malpractice, including an action for

malpractice against a physician, podiatrist, hospital, or dentist

*

*

*

shall be brought within one year after the cause thereof * * *." to 141 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3228. read: upon The statute has other or year that

accrued been than

amended an

"An action for * * * malpractice a medical, dental, optometric, within one

action claim,

chiropractic

* * * shall be commenced

after the cause of action accrued * * *." the insertion of the words "other

Appellants argue than" in the beyond by

statute those

contemplates defined argument. The at

the existence of malpractice actions common law. We are unpersuaded

appellants'

revised

statute

specifically

includes

chiropractic

claims for the first time in subsection (A) and brings registered nurses, physical therapists and hospital employees within 142 was with of the Ohio not the

definition of a medical claim under subsection (D)(3). Laws, Part II, The 3322, new 3324. The term is wholly "malpractice" consistent

altered. assumption Court

language

that the General Assembly was well aware law when the amendments include registered of "medical the were nurses

Supreme The

decisional

adopted. and

amendments employees decisions

expressly in had in the

hospital our past

definition

claim";

excluded

them from

common-law

definition. amended R.C.

Furthermore, 2305.11(D)(13)

1990, the General Assembly again to bring another new

profession,

athletic 143 Ohio

trainers, within the one-year statute of limitations. Laws, Part I, 489. excluded, Having expressly included some it is not logical to assume

disciplines that other

heretofore

disciplines are to be joined by silent implication. We conclude that a cause of action arising from the claimed

negligence

of a licensed independent social worker,

a

licensed not by a

psychologist or a licensed mental health care facility is claim for malpractice and is therefore not governed

R.C.

2305.11. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of

appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and

Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Download 1994-ohio-223.pdf