Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Slip Opinion)
155 Ohio St. 3d 389, 2018 Ohio 4391, 122 N.E.3d 80 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio's discovery rule, the statute of limitations for a bodily injury claim based on a latent disease begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the latent disease and its connection to the defendant's conduct. A plaintiff's awareness of initial, less severe injuries at the time of a traumatic event does not automatically trigger the statute of limitations for a distinct, latent disease that manifests years later.
Facts:
- From 1974 to 1978, Steven Schmitz played football for the University of Notre Dame.
- During his college football career, Schmitz sustained repetitive concussive and subconcussive head impacts, experiencing symptoms such as disorientation.
- Notre Dame's coaching staff encouraged tackling techniques that involved using the helmeted head and directed players to continue playing after head impacts.
- Schmitz was never tested for concussions or educated about the potential for long-term brain injury during his time at Notre Dame.
- In December 2012, a competent medical authority diagnosed Schmitz with Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a latent degenerative brain disease.
- Schmitz alleged that until his 2012 diagnosis, he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that he had suffered a latent brain injury related to playing football.
- By 2014, Schmitz was also diagnosed with severe memory loss, cognitive decline, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia, which he claimed were caused by the head impacts.
- Schmitz passed away in February 2015.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2014, Steven Schmitz and his wife sued the University of Notre Dame and the NCAA in an Ohio trial court.
- After Steven Schmitz's death, his estate was substituted as a plaintiff, and an amended complaint was filed in January 2015.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case without providing an opinion.
- The plaintiffs, as appellees, appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of some claims but reversed the dismissal of the negligence and fraud-related claims, finding they were not conclusively time-barred, and remanded the case.
- The defendants, as appellants, sought and were granted a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the two-year statute of limitations for a bodily injury claim begin to run when a plaintiff is aware of initial, immediate injuries from a traumatic event, or when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, a distinct latent disease that later develops from that event?
Opinions:
Majority - French, J.
No, the statute of limitations for a latent disease does not automatically begin to run when the initial injuries are sustained; it begins when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the latent disease and its cause. The court reasoned that knowledge of an initial injury, like a concussion, is distinct from the discovery of a latent disease like CTE that may develop years later. Applying the discovery rule from precedents like Liddell, the court found that a plaintiff's cause of action for a latent disease accrues when they are informed by a medical authority or should have reasonably known about the disease and its link to the defendant's conduct. Here, the complaint alleges Schmitz was unaware of his latent injury or its cause until his CTE diagnosis in 2012. Because the complaint does not conclusively show on its face that the claim is time-barred, dismissal at the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) stage is improper. The court also held that the fraud-related claims are subject to the same two-year statute of limitations for bodily injury because their essential character is recovery for personal injury.
Concurring - Kennedy, J.
No, the claims cannot be dismissed at this stage, but the majority's reasoning is premature. It is too early in the litigation to definitively hold that the discovery rule applies to the claims. The only necessary holding is that the complaint, on its face, does not conclusively show that the action is time-barred. Therefore, dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is inappropriate, and the case should be remanded for further proceedings, such as discovery, to develop the factual record. The question of whether the discovery rule ultimately applies should be decided after more facts are known.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the discovery rule in cases involving latent diseases resulting from known, initial traumatic events, particularly in the context of sports-related injuries. It establishes that awareness of immediate symptoms (like concussions) does not start the statute of limitations clock for a distinct, later-developing disease (like CTE). This precedent protects plaintiffs with long-latency injuries from having their claims dismissed prematurely, ensuring they have a chance to litigate once the full extent and nature of their injury become known. The ruling will likely influence future litigation involving toxic torts, product liability, and other areas where injuries do not manifest for many years after exposure.
