A recent appellate court decision has upheld the dismissal of key claims in a lawsuit alleging that improper post-surgical monitoring at a hospital contributed to a patient’s death, clarifying how strict procedural rules affect medical negligence cases. The ruling matters because it highlights the importance for plaintiffs to strictly follow statutory notice requirements and to ensure expert testimony is properly documented when pursuing such claims.
The complaint was filed by Antoine Francis, individually and as administrator of the estate of Michael E. Francis, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on February 20, 2024, against Cleveland Clinic Foundation. According to court documents, Michael E. Francis underwent hip surgery at a Cleveland Clinic Foundation hospital on December 3, 2020. He had several pre-existing conditions that increased his risk for adverse outcomes, including kidney disease requiring hemodialysis. On December 4, 2020, while recovering from surgery, Michael went into cardiac arrest and died. It was later discovered that heart monitors ordered by his physician were not properly connected prior to his death.
Antoine Francis initially sued Cleveland Clinic Foundation on April 22, 2022, but voluntarily dismissed the complaint before refiling it in February 2024. The refiled complaint raised two counts: “Medical Negligence, Professional Torts and/or General Negligence/Survivorship” and “Wrongful Death.” The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that failure to connect monitors led to an untimely response by medical personnel during Michael’s cardiac arrest.
On December 2, 2024, Cleveland Clinic Foundation moved for partial summary judgment on grounds that the survivorship claim was filed outside Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations for medical claims under R.C. 2305.113(A). The defendant supported its motion with correspondence showing that while plaintiff’s counsel notified them via email about investigating potential claims within one year after Michael’s death, this notice was not sent by certified mail as required by law.
The plaintiff argued that actual receipt of written notice should be sufficient to extend the limitations period by an additional 180 days under R.C. 2305.113(B), citing an email exchange between counsel confirming receipt of notice about potential claims. However, the appellate court disagreed with this interpretation.
Citing precedent from Ackman v. Mercy Health W. Hosp., L.L.C., the court emphasized that actual notice does not substitute for strict compliance with statutory service requirements—specifically certified mail—in order to extend filing deadlines for medical-negligence claims: “if notice was the only reason for service… assertion of that defense would be proof that the defendant had notice and the defense would necessarily fail.” The court concluded that because Antoine Francis did not send written notice by certified mail as mandated by R.C. 2305.113(B)(2), he failed to extend the limitations period beyond one year from Michael’s death on December 4, 2020.
As a result, on March 19, 2025, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Cleveland Clinic Foundation and dismissed Count One (medical-negligence survivorship claim) along with related requests for punitive damages.
The case proceeded solely on Antoine Francis’s wrongful-death claim. Before trial began on March 24, 2025, Antoine proposed jury instructions regarding a “loss-of-chance” theory—arguing that failure to maintain working monitors deprived Michael of even a small chance at recovery from cardiac arrest.
Cleveland Clinic Foundation filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any loss-of-chance argument at trial because Dr. David Grundy—the plaintiff’s medical expert—had not addressed this theory explicitly in his report or deposition testimony. After hearing arguments from both sides in open court, the judge granted this motion and instructed parties to limit expert testimony strictly to opinions disclosed in their reports.
During trial proceedings—which began March 24—the jury heard evidence limited accordingly; no instruction regarding loss-of-chance was given. Although Cleveland Clinic Foundation admitted failing its duty regarding cardiac monitoring equipment maintenance for Michael E. Francis after surgery, it disputed causation linking this failure directly or proximately to his death.
Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for Cleveland Clinic Foundation after finding insufficient evidence establishing causation between alleged negligence and Michael’s death “to a reasonable degree of medical probability.”
On appeal Antoine Francis challenged both (1) dismissal based on statute-of-limitations grounds due to lack of certified-mail notification; and (2) exclusion of loss-of-chance expert testimony at trial despite what he argued was compliant testimony under Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med Group standards.
The appellate panel reviewed these assignments de novo regarding summary judgment issues and under abuse-of-discretion standards concerning evidentiary rulings about expert witness testimony per Civil Rule procedures (Civ.R.26). They found no error or abuse by lower courts: Dr. Grundy’s report never opined specifically about less-than-even chances for survival nor quantified diminished likelihood due specifically to negligent monitoring during cardiac arrest recovery; instead it framed opinions within traditional tort concepts requiring probability-based causation.
In conclusion: “We do not find that the court abused its discretion by granting CCF’s motion in limine… Judgment affirmed.”
Costs were taxed against appellant Antoine Francis; reasonable grounds were found for bringing appeal but all assignments of error were overruled.
Attorneys listed include Derek W. Smith (for appellant) and Emily K. Anglewicz (for appellee Cleveland Clinic Foundation). Judges presiding were Lisa B. Forbes (Presiding Judge), Kathleen Ann Keough (J.), Deena R Calabrese (J.). Case ID is CV-24-993096.
Source: 2026Ohio829_Francis_v_Cleveland_Clinic_Foundation_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
