Legal Opinion

Akers v. Alonzo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1992No. 91-1947PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The determinative issue in this cause is whether plaintiffs’ action against Dr. de Lamerens was timely filed pursuant to R.C. 2305.11 and controlling precedents. For the reasons that follow, we answer this issue in the affirmative, thereby affirming the judgment of the court of appeals below.

With respect to the issue on appeal, defendants contend that under Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1, 516 N.E.2d 204, and Allenius v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93, Mr. Akers was chargeable with knowledge in October 1984 that the symptoms of which he had complained…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health FoundationOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Frysinger v. LeechOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Flowers v. WalkerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Allenius v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Evans v. Southern Ohio Medical CenterOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Rush v. Univ. of Cincinnati Physicians, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. Kritzwiser v. Bonetzky, 8-07-24 (9-29-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. Sullivan v. Mercy HealthOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. Hans v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 07ap-10 (6-28-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API