The online versions of legislation provided on this website are not official. Enrolled bills are the final version passed by the Ohio General Assembly and presented to the Governor for signature. The official version of acts signed by the Governor are available from the Secretary of State's Office in the Continental Plaza, 180 East Broad St., Columbus.
|
H. B. No. 276 As IntroducedAs Introduced
130th General Assembly | Regular Session | 2013-2014 |
| |
Cosponsors:
Representatives Becker, Blair, Blessing, Hackett, Hottinger, Johnson, Scherer, Sears, Smith
A BILL
To amend section 2317.43 and to enact sections
2305.27 and 2323.40 of the Revised Code to provide
that certain statements and communications made
regarding an unanticipated outcome of medical care
are inadmissible as evidence, to require a
plaintiff in a medical claim to establish that the
defendant's act or omission is a deviation from
the required standard of medical care and the
direct and proximate cause of the alleged injury,
death, or loss, to provide that any loss of a
chance of recovery or survival by itself is not an
injury, death, or loss for which damages may be
recovered, and to grant civil immunity to a health
care facility for injury, death, or loss caused by
a health care practitioner who is not an employee
or agent of, and provides medical services at, the
facility.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That section 2317.43 be amended and sections
2305.27 and 2323.40 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as
follows:
Sec. 2305.27. (A) As used in this section:
(1) "Health care facility or location" has the same meaning
as in section 2305.234 of the Revised Code.
(2) "Health care practitioner" has the same meaning as in
division (B)(5) of section 2317.02 of the Revised Code.
(3) "Independent medical practitioner" means any health care
practitioner who is not an actual employee or agent of the health
care facility or location in which the medical services are being
provided.
(4) "Medical claim" has the same meaning as in section
2305.113 of the Revised Code.
(B) A health care facility or location is not liable in
damages for injury, death, or loss to person in a civil action
asserting a medical claim if the injury, death, or loss to person
is the result of an act or omission of a health care practitioner
who is an independent medical practitioner and the health care
facility or location has provided notice in accordance with
divisions (C) and (D) of this section that the health care
practitioner is or could be an independent medical practitioner.
(C) A health care facility or location is considered as
having provided the notice under division (B) of this section if
the health care facility or location either provided a copy of the
notice in writing to the patient or the patient's representative
prior to providing the medical services at issue or the health
care facility or location has posted the notice in all of the
regular and established admitting areas of the facility or
location. In the case of an emergency and in the absence of
posting of the notice as provided in this division, a health care
facility or location shall provide a copy of the notice in writing
to the patient or the patient's representative as soon as
practicable under the circumstances.
(D) The notice under division (B) of this section shall be in
substantially the following form:
"NOTICE
Not all of the health care practitioners who are providing
your medical services while you are here are employed by or agents
of [name of health care facility or location]. If you want to
determine whether a health care practitioner is an employee or
agent of [name of health care facility or location], contact [name
and phone number for contact person]. In the absence of
confirmation that a health care practitioner is an employee or
agent of [name of health care facility or location], you should
assume that the practitioner is not an employee or agent of [name
of health care facility or location].
[Name of health care facility or location] is not legally
responsible for the acts or omissions of health care practitioners
who are not employed by or agents of [name of health care facility
or location]."
(E) This section applies only to a health care facility or
location if it requires independent medical practitioners, as a
condition of their ability to provide medical services at the
health care facility or location, to maintain a minimum of one
million dollars in professional liability coverage.
(F) This section does not apply to any action brought against
the state in the court of claims, including, but not limited to,
any action in which a state university or college is a defendant.
(G) This section does not preclude liability for damages for
injury, death, or loss to person under any other provision of the
Revised Code or federal law.
(H)(1) This section does not create a new cause of action or
substantive legal right against a health care facility or
location.
(2) This section does not affect any immunities from civil
liability or defenses established by another section of the
Revised Code or available at common law to which a health care
facility or location may be entitled in connection with medical
services provided by the facility or location.
Sec. 2317.43. (A) In any civil action brought by an alleged
victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care or in any
arbitration proceeding related to such a civil action, any and all
statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct expressing apology,
sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion, error, fault, or
a general sense of benevolence that are made by a health care
provider or, an employee of a health care provider, or a
representative of a health care provider to the alleged victim, a
relative of the alleged victim, or a representative of the alleged
victim, and that relate to the discomfort, pain, suffering,
injury, or death of the alleged victim as the result of the
unanticipated outcome of medical care are inadmissible as evidence
of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission
against interest.
(B) In any civil action brought by an alleged victim of an
unanticipated outcome of medical care, in any arbitration
proceeding related to such a civil action, or in any other civil
proceeding, any communications made by a health care provider, an
employee of a health care provider, or a representative of a
health care provider to the alleged victim, a relative or
acquaintance of the alleged victim, or a representative of the
alleged victim following an unanticipated outcome and made as part
of a review conducted in good faith by the health care provider,
an employee of the health care provider, or a representative of
the health care provider into the cause of or reasons for an
unanticipated outcome, are inadmissible as evidence unless the
communications are recorded in the medical record of the alleged
victim. Nothing in this section requires a review to be conducted.
(C) For purposes of this section, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(1) "Health care provider" has the same meaning as in
division (B)(5) of section 2317.02 of the Revised Code.
(2) "Relative" means a victim's spouse, parent, grandparent,
stepfather, stepmother, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half
brother, half sister, or spouse's parents. The term includes said
relationships that are created as a result of adoption. In
addition, "relative" includes any person who has a family-type
relationship with a victim.
(3) "Representative of an alleged victim" means a legal
guardian, attorney, person designated to make decisions on behalf
of a patient under a medical power of attorney, or any person
recognized in law or custom as a patient's agent.
(4) "Representative of a health care provider" means an
attorney, health care provider, employee of a health care
provider, or other person designated by a health care provider or
an employee of a health care provider to participate in a review
conducted by a health care provider or employee of a health care
provider.
(5) "Review" means the policy, procedures, and activities
undertaken by or at the direction of a health care provider,
employee of a health care provider, or person designated by a
health care provider or employee of a health care provider with
the purpose of determining the cause of or reasons for an
unanticipated outcome, and initiated and completed during the
first forty-five days following the occurrence or discovery of an
unanticipated outcome. A review may be extended for a longer
period if necessary upon written notice to the patient, relative
of the patient, or representative of the patient.
(6) "Unanticipated outcome" means the outcome of a medical
treatment or procedure that differs from an expected result or any
outcome that is adverse or not satisfactory to the patient.
Sec. 2323.40. (A) As used in this section, "medical claim"
has the same meaning as in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code.
(B) In any civil action upon a medical claim, in order for
the plaintiff to recover any damages resulting from the alleged
injury, death, or loss to person, the plaintiff shall establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that the act or omission of the
defendant in rendering medical care or treatment is a deviation
from the required standard of medical care or treatment and the
direct and proximate cause of the injury, death, or loss to
person. Direct and proximate cause of the injury, death, or loss
to person is established by evidence showing that it is more
likely than not that the defendant's act or omission was a cause
in fact of the injury, death, or loss to person. Any loss or
diminution of a chance of recovery or survival by itself is not an
injury, death, or loss to person for which damages may be
recovered.
Section 2. That existing section 2317.43 of the Revised Code
is hereby repealed.
Section 3. The General Assembly finds that in civil actions
based upon a medical claim, the negligent act or omission of the
responsible party must be shown to have been the direct and
proximate cause of the injury, death, or loss to person complained
of. The General Assembly also finds that the application of the
so-called loss of chance doctrine in those actions improperly
alters or eliminates the requirement of direct and proximate
causation. Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court decision adopting the
loss of chance doctrine in Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Medical
Group, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 483, is hereby abrogated.
|
|