Whitt v. Columbus Cooperative Enterprises

The sole issue in the instant cause is whether the one-year statute of limitations, under the purview of R. C. 2305.11(A), or the two-year statute of limitations, under R. C. 2305.10, is applicable to a negligence action against an optometrist.1 Stated otherwise, the issue is whether negligence by an optometrist constitutes “malpractice” within the meaning of R. C. 2305.11(A).2

The common-law meaning of malpractice was restricted to intentional or negligent acts by physicians and lawyers. That meaning was given to the term “malpractice” in the original version of R. C. 2305.II.3 In 1975 and…