A Cincinnati resident is challenging the constitutionality of an Ohio statute that he claims unfairly bars his medical malpractice lawsuit. On November 13, 2025, Prince Rankin filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Dave Yost, the Attorney General of Ohio. Rankin argues that the state’s medical-claim statute of repose, codified as R.C. § 2305.113(C), violates his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing him from pursuing a legitimate claim due to procedural technicalities.
Rankin’s ordeal began when he received treatment for prostate cancer and a urinary tract infection from Dr. Gary M. Kirsh between March and December 2016. During this period, Dr. Kirsh prescribed Bactrim for several months, contrary to medical guidelines recommending shorter usage durations. As a result, Rankin suffered acute renal failure and was hospitalized multiple times between December 2016 and January 2017. He learned on December 10, 2016, that his condition was caused by Bactrim toxicity.
In response to these events, Rankin initially filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on November 30, 2017, in Hamilton County Court but voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice in December 2019 with plans to refile later. He did so on December 3, 2020, within Ohio’s one-year refiling period under R.C. § 2305.19(A). However, his case was dismissed again in December 2022 due to Ohio’s four-year statute of repose for medical claims—a decision upheld by higher courts through January 2024.
Rankin’s legal argument centers around what he perceives as an unjust application of R.C. § 2305.113(C), which extinguishes claims filed more than four years after the alleged act or omission regardless of when injuries are discovered or if there were prior timely filings under Ohio’s saving statute provisions for cases like his own where discovery occurred after initial treatment concluded.
The plaintiff contends that this statutory scheme denies him due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions because it does not account for temporary incapacitation or compliance with saving statutes—protections afforded to other tort plaintiffs but not those pursuing medical malpractice actions.
Rankin seeks declaratory judgment declaring parts of R.C.§2305:113(C) unconstitutional insofar as they apply without considering factors such as discovery dates or saving-statute compliance; prospective injunctive relief preventing future enforcement against similar litigants; reasonable attorney fees/costs under federal civil rights laws (42 U.S.C.§1988); along with any additional relief deemed appropriate by court authorities involved here today.”
The case is represented legally by F.Harrison Green Co., L.P.A., while Judge Douglas R Cole presides over proceedings identified officially via Case ID:1:25-cv-00828-DRC
Source: 125cv00828_Rankin_v_Yost_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
