BlogLine

Examining the relationship between Ohio’s statute of repose and its savings statute

3/13/25

By: Cori M. Agnoni, Lisa R. House, and Aaron N. Kaeser

In Gamble v. Valley Oaks Care Center, 2025-Ohio-570 (7th Dist.), the court examined the relationship between Ohio’s savings statute and the statute of repose, choosing to strictly apply the statute of repose in a medical negligence setting and held that voluntarily dismissing a case with intent to refile will not preserve the matter in relation to the statute of repose. 

The case arose from a nursing home resident’s death on Feb. 27, 2017. Her estate filed a timely suit on Feb. 27, 2018—exactly one year later—alleging wrongful death and bringing survivorship claims against the nursing home. The matter was set for trial in March 2023; however, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice just four days before trial. 

On Feb. 20, 2024—within one year of the voluntary dismissal—the plaintiff refiled the complaint. The nursing home filed a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss arguing the action fell outside Ohio’s four-year statute of repose for medical claims under R.C. 2305.113(C), which expired in February 2021. In return, the plaintiff relied on Ohio’s saving statute, which permits refiling within one year of a dismissed action and argued that the voluntary dismissal preserved the claims. In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court relied on the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decisions holding that a plaintiff cannot take advantage of a saving statute to refile a medical claim after the statute of limitations expired if the four-year statute of repose had also expired. 

Affirming the trial court, the appellate court reasoned that while the saving statute can extend the statute of limitations, it does not override the statute of repose, which serves as a firm deadline beyond which claims cannot be revived. This ruling aligns with prior Ohio precedent that emphasizes that statutes of repose create an absolute bar to claims after a specified period, regardless of prior filings. As such, “a timely complaint . . . that is voluntarily dismissed and refiled under the general saving statute or the wrongful death saving statute cannot thereby adopt the commencement date of the original complaint in a ‘relation back’ attempt to avoid the four-year medical claim statute of repose.” ¹

Gamble shows that defense attorneys should always consider the statute of repose when analyzing a case and its timeline. While the saving statute provides additional time for refiling, it does not circumvent the finality imposed by the statute of repose—an important distinction when evaluating potential defenses.

For more information, please contact Cori M. Agnoni at cori.agnoni@fmglaw.com, Lisa R. House at lisa.house@fmglaw.com, Aaron N. Kaeser at aaron.kaeser@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

 

1. (Emphasis in original.) Gamble v. Valley Oaks Care Center, 2025-Ohio-570, ¶ 46 (7th Dist.).  ↩︎