Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds S.B. 80 Tort Reform

The Ohio Supreme Court has just issued a press release that the Court has upheld 2 tort reform statutes.  In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2007-Ohio-6948, the Court held that 2 recent Ohio tort reform statutes do not violate the constitutional rights of personal injury plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court held that caps on non-economic damages and punitives do not violate: 1) constitutional rights to trial by jury; 2) due process; 3) equal protection; and 4) Ohio constitional provisions that guarantee open courts and separation of powers. Both caps were enacted as part of S.B. 80 (passed in 2004 and effective in 2005), which placed the caps in O.R.C. 2315.18 and O.R.C. 2315.21, respectively.

Ohio Supreme Court Defines Standard for Experts in Toxic Torts

On October 3, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court announced its decision in Terry v. Caputo (Case No. 2006-0705). The Supreme Court summary indicates that the Court "held that in order to establish a prima facie claim that a medical condition was the result of exposure to a toxic substance, the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit must establish by means of expert testimony (1) that the toxin is capable of causing the medical condition (general causation); and (2) that the toxic substance in fact caused the claimant's condition (specific causation)." This case involved a suit by 15 employees who sued their employer, the Ottawa County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Delay (MRDD), alleging that they were exposed to mold and other irritants at work that caused them a large number of medical problems. Their respiratory expert tied their conditions to their work environment.

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court accounced a decision in Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, clarifying when the statute of limitations begins to run on a claim for malicious prosecution. In a 6-1 decision, the Court held that the one-year statute of limitations contained in ORC 2305.11(A) began to run on the date a grand jury declined to indict the accused, who was a nurse at a psychiatric hospital. The nurse had argued that her time to sue should be extended through the conclusion of post-grand jury discussions by the prosecutor about additional potential charges. In his lone dissent, Justice Pfeifer indicated that the statute of limitations should not begin to run until there is a final disposition that the accused is innocent, which he further stated a "no bill" does not assure.