A ROGUE RULE?: AN EXPOSÈ ON THE UNRESOLVED
ISSUES AND NEEDLESS LITIGATION CREATED BY
OHIO’S AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT RULE
JACOB J. BEAUSAY*
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the 1970s, medical malpractice has emerg ed as a rapidly
expanding area of civil litigation.1 Along with the field’s emerging
prevalence came unforeseen consequences. Plaintiff a ttorneys were eag er
to file medical malpractice claims be cause of the deep pockets and large
verdicts the claims provided.2 More importantly, patients realized how
much a medical error could ultimately affect their financial well-being.3
Consequently, doctors and h ospitals noticed the effects of the ri sing
amount of litigation through th e cost of insuring themsel ves in the event of
a lawsuit.4 Thus began what some might call the medical malpractice
“crisis.”
From the late 1970s until today, the legal and th e medical com munities
have struggled to find a balance between claims that may be litigated (o r
those with “merit”) and claims that are purely frivolous.5 In the interval,
plaintiffs’ attorneys and doctors have been playing a “he said, she said”
blame game—doctors blame p laintiff attorneys for the exorbitant cost of
malpractice insurance p remiums and plaintiff attorneys blame the doctors
_______________________________________________________
Copyright © 2009, Jacob J. B eausay.
* J.D. Capital University Law Schoo l, May 2009; B.S . Pennsylvania State University,
2005. I w ould like to thank my family and friends for their support in writing this article. I
would especially like to than k Jeff Beausay for his assistance in developing and refinin g
this article.
1 Ins. Info. Inst., MED. MALPRACTICE, Sept. 2007 ,
http://www.iii.org/media/ho ttopics/insurance/medicalmal.
2 Id. (claiming that lawyers are excessively e ager to bring malpractice sui ts because of
the high fees that can be co llected if their clients win).
3 Id. (stating that one of the perceived reason s for the increa se in medical malpractice
claims was that people w ere more aware of the possibility of damages).
4 Id.
5 Id.
1156 CAPITAL UNIV ERSITY LAW REVIEW [37:1155
for maki ng to o many mi stakes.6 The result of this battle was th e creat ion
of new policy and reform of the law. In Ohio, the General Assembly
enacted sweeping reform to protect the doctors, hospitals and insurance
companies from th e rising amount of litigation .
In Ohio, tort reform was first in troduced in the late 1970 s.7 The to rt
reform was aim ed primarily at medical malpractice litigation.8 Amongst
the massive reform was a policy-based provision that was intended to
eliminate “frivolous” or meritless claims from ev er being fil ed.9 But, like
the rest of the tort reform in t he state, thi s prov ision had growin g pain s—
repeatedly being held uncons titutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.10 After
a long battle between the Ohio Sup reme Court and the Ohio General
Assembly, the two finally settled on creating a civil rule of proced ure
governing the fili ng of medical m alpractice claims .11
At the request of the General Assembly,12 the Supreme Co urt o f Ohio
adopted Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 10(D)(2) which requires plaintiffs to
_______________________________________________________
6 Compare Ross Eisenbrey, Malpractic e Made Perfect, AM. PROSPECT, Aug . 2, 2005,
http://www.prospect.org/ cs/articles?articleId=10058 (arguing reducing medical errors
would save far more than any tort-reform law and do so without impeding victims’ rights o f
recovery), with Charles Kolodkin & Paul Greve, Medi cal Malpractice: The Hig h Cost of
Meritless Claims, INT’L RISK MGMT. INST., Jan. 2007,
http://www.irmi.com/Expe rt/Articles/2007/Kolodkin01.aspx ( arguing meritless lawsuits are
a primary cause of rising in surance premiums).
7 See 1975 Ohio Laws 2809 .
8 See id.
9 See Hodge v. Cheek, 581 N.E.2d 581, 584 (Ohio Ct. App . 1989) (“By requiring
plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff to consult with a qualified expert p rior to filing a medical
malpractice claim, claims having no bona fide merit can b e weed ed out without
commencing an action.”).
10 See, e.g., Stat e ex rel. Ohio Acad. of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062,
1102 (Ohio 1999) (The Supreme Court of Ohio he ld Am. S ub. H.B. 350, 121st Gen.
Assem., R eg. Sess. (Ohio 19 96) (various medical malpractice tort reform measures)
“unconstitutional in toto.”).
11 See id.; Hiatt v. S. Health Facilities, Inc., 62 6 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ohio 1994) (both cases
holding that the statutory construction of the af fidavit o f merit requirement was
unconstitutional).
12 See Sub. H.B. 215 § 3, 125th Gen. Assem. , Reg. Sess. (Ohio 200 4); see also Manley
v. Marsico, 876 N.E.2d 910 , 911 n.1 (Ohio 2007).
2009] OHIO’S AFFID AVIT OF MERI T RULE 1157
obtain an affidavit of a qualified expert as a threshold matter to fil ing a
medical malpracti ce complaint.13 In pert inent part, the rule states:
(a) Excep t as provided in division (D)(2)(b) of this rule, a
complaint that contains a medical claim, dental claim,
optometric claim, or chiropractic claim, as defined in
section 2305 .113 of the Rev ised Code, s hall include one or
more affidavits of merit relative to each defendant named
in the complaint for whom expert t estimony is neces sary to
establish liability. Affidavits of meri t shall be provided by
an expert witness pursuant to Rules 601(D) and 702 of the
Ohio Rules of Evidence. Affidavits of merit shall include
all of the followin g:
(i) A statement that the affiant has reviewed all
medical re cords reaso nably available to the plainti ff
concerning the all egations contain ed in the complaint;
(ii) A statement that the affiant is familiar with the
applicable standard of care;
(iii) The opini on of the affiant that the standard of care
was breached by one or more of th e defendants to the
action and that the breach caused in jury to the plai ntiff.
(b) The plaintiff may file a motion to ex tend the period
of time to file an affidav it of merit. The motion shall be
filed by t he plaintiff with the comp laint. For good cause
shown and in accordance with division (c) of this rule, the
court shall g rant the plai ntiff a reasonable period of tim e to
file an affi davit of merit, not to exceed ninety days, except
the t ime may be extended beyond ninet y day s if the court
determines t hat a defendant or non-party has failed to
cooperate with dis covery or that ot her circumstan ces
warrant extensio n.14
_______________________________________________________
13 OHIO R. CIV. P. 10(D)(2).
14 Id. at 10(D)(2)(a)–(b).
