Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2305
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.118 (2026)

Action for an assisted reproduction procedure performed without consent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 4, 2023
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 288 - 134th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) As used in this section "health care professional" has the same meaning as in section 2907.13 of the Revised Code.

(B) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, an action under section 4731.861 or 4731.864 of the Revised Code for an assisted reproduction procedure performed without consent shall be brought within ten years after the procedure was performed.

(C)(1) An action that would otherwise be barred under division (B) of this section, may be brought not later than five years after the latest any of the following occurs:

(a) The discovery of evidence based on deoxyribonucleic acid analysis sufficient to bring the action against the health care professional.

(b) The discovery of a recording providing evidence sufficient to bring the action against the health care professional.

(c) The health care professional confesses and the confession is known to the plaintiff.

(2) If a person born as a result of an assisted reproduction procedure discovers any of the evidence listed in division (C)(1) of this section before the person reaches the age of twenty-one, the five-year period does not begin to run until the person reaches the age of twenty-one.

Last updated March 9, 2023 at 5:11 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Fletcher v. Univ. Hospitals, 897 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fletcher v. Univ. Hospitals, 897 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 2008). “10(D) requires that every complaint containing a medical claim as defined in R.C. 2305.118 must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit.”
Hill v. Wadsworth-Rittman Area Hosp., 925 N.E.2d 1012 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “However, the Hills’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the claims against WRH and Hoover are “medical claims” as defined by R.C. 2305.118 and as argued by counsel for WRH and Hoover.”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2× “As recently as 2022, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.118, 2022 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 288, which includes a discovery- rule provision for deoxyribonucleic bodily-injury actions, R.”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 4× “As recently as 2022, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.118, 2022 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 288, which includes a discovery- rule provision for deoxyribonucleic bodily-injury actions, R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.118(C)(1) — 2 cases
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). “As recently as 2022, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.118, 2022 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 288, which includes a discovery- rule provision for deoxyribonucleic bodily-injury actions, R.”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). “As recently as 2022, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.118, 2022 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 288, which includes a discovery- rule provision for deoxyribonucleic bodily-injury actions, R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.