Hardy v. VerMeulen

How later courts describe this case

• holding that the four-year statute of repose "as applied to bar the claims of medical malpractice plaintiffs who did not know or could not reasonably have known of their injuries, violates the right-to-a-remedy provision of... the Ohio Constitution"
• examining solely whether the plaintiff had a remedy at the time he discovered his injury without an inquiry into the reasonableness of the statute
• four-year statute of repose, as applied to medical malpractice claims, violates the right-to-a-remedy provision of the Ohio Constitution
• Medical malpractice statute violated due process clause because it extinguished plaintiffs’ cause of action before he could reasonably have discovered his injury
• statute violates right-to-a-remedy provision of Ohio Constitution with respect to plaintiffs who did not know or could not reasonably have known of their injuries