Quick Summary
Steven Schmitz (plaintiff) sued the University of Notre Dame and the NCAA (defendants) for injuries sustained from playing college football. The legal dispute centered around whether his claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations period.
The issue was whether Schmitz filed his claims too late after sustaining football-related injuries. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that under the discovery rule, Schmitz’s claims might not be time-barred as he may have only become aware of his injury upon diagnosis.
Facts of the Case
Steven Schmitz (plaintiff) played college football for the University of Notre Dame (defendant) between 1974 and 1978, a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (defendant). During his tenure, Schmitz was encouraged by coaches to engage in tackles and blocks using his helmeted head, leading to repeated brain impacts.
Despite experiencing concussion symptoms, Schmitz was not examined for concussions nor warned about the long-term effects of such injuries. In December 2012, Schmitz was diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease linked to his football injuries.
Schmitz and his wife, Yvette Schmitz (defendant), filed a lawsuit against Notre Dame and the NCAA in October 2014, alleging negligence, constructive fraud, and fraudulent concealment, among other claims, asserting that the defendants failed to protect him from known medical risks associated with football.
Procedural History
- The trial court dismissed the case, stating it was barred by the statute of limitations.
- The court of appeals reversed the decision, suggesting the cause of action may have accrued at the time of Schmitz’s diagnosis in December 2012.
- The defendants appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they were filed more than two years after any football injuries occurred.
Rule of Law
In cases involving latent injuries or diseases, a claim accrues either on the date on which the plaintiff is informed by competent medical authority that they have been injured, or upon the date on which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, they should have become aware that they had been injured, whichever date occurs first.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Ohio Supreme Court held that for a case involving a latent injury like CTE, the discovery rule applies, meaning that the statute of limitations does not begin until the plaintiff knows or should know they have been injured by the defendant’s conduct.
The court determined that the amended complaint did not conclusively show that Schmitz knew or should have known more than two years before filing his lawsuit that he had suffered a latent injury due to playing football.
The court also clarified that both negligence and fraud-related claims in such cases are subject to the same two-year statute of limitations.
Ultimately, the court found that the claims were not conclusively time-barred based on the information provided in the amended complaint, allowing for the possibility that Schmitz only became aware of his injury upon diagnosis.
Conclusion
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of the trial court’s dismissal. The discovery rule applied to Schmitz’s claims, and the amended complaint did not conclusively show that these claims were time-barred.
Key Takeaways
- The discovery rule can delay the accrual of a cause of action for bodily injury until a plaintiff knows or should know they have been injured due to another’s conduct.
- Both negligence and fraud-related claims in cases involving bodily injury are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period.
- An amended complaint must show conclusively that claims are time-barred for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
Relevant FAQs of this case
What is the discovery rule and how does it impact the statute of limitations?
The discovery rule pauses the start of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knows or has sufficient information to know that they have been harmed by the defendant’s actions. This principle ensures that individuals have a fair chance to seek justice, even if the harm becomes apparent long after the wrongdoing occurred.
- For example: A patient who undergoes surgery might only discover years later that a surgical instrument was left inside their body; in such a case, the statute of limitations would start at the moment of discovery, not the date of the surgery.
How are latent injuries treated differently than immediate injuries in personal injury claims?
Latent injuries, which may not be immediately apparent after an incident, often receive different legal treatment due to their hidden nature. Courts recognize that plaintiffs cannot pursue claims for harm they are unaware of, allowing more flexibility with regards to when a claim must be filed.
- For example: If a worker is exposed to a toxic substance but only develops symptoms years later, the timeline for filing a claim would usually be adjusted based on when the worker learned or should have learned about the injury connected to exposure.
What determines whether a claimant has exercised 'reasonable diligence' in discovering an injury?
‘Reasonable diligence’ is assessed by considering what an average person would do under similar circumstances. This includes actively seeking medical help for symptoms and following up on potential causes of unexplained health conditions.
- For example: After experiencing persistent headaches, an individual would be expected to consult a doctor and inquire about possible reasons, which could include past head injuries. Failure to investigate or seek advice might be considered a lack of reasonable diligence.
References
Was this case brief helpful?