Hardy v. VerMeulen

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" | 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 | 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