Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2317
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.43 (2026)

Medical liability action - admissibility of certain communications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 7 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) (1) In any civil action brought by an alleged victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care or in any arbitration proceeding related to such a civil action, any and all statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct expressing apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion, error, fault, or a general sense of benevolence that are made by a health care provider, an employee of a health care provider, or a representative of a health care provider to the alleged victim, a relative of the alleged victim, or a representative of the alleged victim, and that relate to the discomfort, pain, suffering, injury, or death of the alleged victim as the result of the unanticipated outcome of medical care are inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest.

(2) If any statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct that are described in division (A)(1) of this section or any reference to them are included in the medical record pertaining to the victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care, only the portions of the medical record that include those statements, affirmations, gestures, or conduct or any reference to them are inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest.

(B) (1) When made as part of a review conducted in good faith by the health care provider, an employee of the health care provider, or a representative of the health care provider into the cause of or reasons for an unanticipated outcome of medical care, the following communications are inadmissible as evidence in any civil action brought by an alleged victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care, in any arbitration proceeding related to such a civil action, or in any other civil proceeding, unless the communications are recorded in the medical record of the alleged victim, subject to division (A)(2) of this section:

(a) Any communications made by a health care provider, an employee of a health care provider, or a representative of a health care provider to the alleged victim, a relative or acquaintance of the alleged victim, or a representative of the alleged victim;

(b) Any communications made by an alleged victim, a relative or acquaintance of the alleged victim, or a r epresentative of the alleged victim to the health care provider, an employee of a health care provider, or a representative of a health care provider.

(2) Nothing in this section requires a review to be conducted.

(C) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Health care provider" has the same meaning as in division (B)(5) of section 2317.02 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Relative" means a victim's spouse, parent, grandparent, stepfather, stepmother, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half brother, half sister, or spouse's parents. The term includes said relationships that are created as a result of adoption. In addition, "relative" includes any person who has a family-type relationship with a victim.

(3) "Representative of an alleged victim " means a legal guardian, attorney, person designated to make decisions on behalf of a patient under a medical power of attorney, or any person recognized in law or custom as a patient's agent.

(4) "Representative of a health care provider" means an attorney, health care provider, employee of a health care provider, or other person designated by a health care provider or an employee of a health care provider to participate in a review conducted by a health care provider or employee of a health care provider.

(5) "Review" means the policy, procedures, and activities undertaken by or at the direction of a health care provider, employee of a health care provider, or person designated by a health care provider or employee of a health care provider with the purpose of determining the cause of or reasons for an unanticipated outcome, and initiated and completed during the first forty-five days following the occurrence or discovery of an unanticipated outcome. A review shall be initiated by verbal communication to the patient, relative of the patient, or representative of the patient by the health care provider, employee of a health care provider, or person designated by a health care provider or employee of a health care provider. The verbal communication shall be followed by a written document explaining the review process. A review may be extended for a longer period if necessary upon written notice to the patient, relative of the patient, or representative of the patient.

(6) "Unanticipated outcome" means the outcome of a medical treatment or procedure that differs from an expected result or any outcome that is adverse or not satisfactory to the patient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Stewart v. Vivian (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7526 (Ohio 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stewart v. Vivian (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7526 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 52× “] Evidence—R.C. 2317.43—A “statement[] * * * expressing apology” for purposes of R.”
Est. of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1507 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 22× “{¶ 1} In this case, we confront the proper application of R.C. 2317.43, Ohio’s statute that prevents the admission of certain statements made by healthcare providers.”
Stewart v. Vivian, 2016 Ohio 2892 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “Vivian argued that any statements he made were inadmissible pursuant to Ohio's apology statute, R.C. 2317.43. Dr. Vivian contended that anything he may have said while visiting Michelle in the ICU was inadmissible as evidence of liability as his statements had been offered to…”
Davis v. Wooster Orthopaedics & Sports Med., Inc., 2011 Ohio 3199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “This court affirms the judgment because (1) the trial court did not admit any evidence of sympathy or apology in violation of R.C. 2317.43, (2) the trial court exercised proper discretion in weighing the probative value of the autopsy photograph and related medical testimony…”
Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 965 N.E.2d 344 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 19× “As the grounds for the motion, appellees contended that Smith’s statement constituted an expression of sympathy under R.C. 2317.43, which provides that such statements are inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability.”
Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2025 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “The statute at issue, R.C. 2317.43, prohibited the use of sympathetic statements and gestures made by a healthcare provider as evidence in a civil action “ ‘brought’ ” by a victim of an unanticipated outcome of medical care.”
Janice Welch v. United States (6th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “In opposition to Welch’s summary judgment motion, the Government argued, in part, that the written and recorded evidence of the Institutional Disclosure conversation was inadmissible under the Ohio Apology Statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.43(A)(1), which states: In any civil…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.43(A) — 4 cases
Stewart v. Vivian (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7526 (Ohio 2017). “] Evidence—R.C. 2317.43—A “statement[] * * * expressing apology” for purposes of R.”
Stewart v. Vivian, 2016 Ohio 2892 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Vivian argued that any statements he made were inadmissible pursuant to Ohio's apology statute, R.C. 2317.43. Dr. Vivian contended that anything he may have said while visiting Michelle in the ICU was inadmissible as evidence of liability as his statements had been offered to…”
Est. of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1507 (Ohio 2013). “{¶ 1} In this case, we confront the proper application of R.C. 2317.43, Ohio’s statute that prevents the admission of certain statements made by healthcare providers.”
Davis v. Wooster Orthopaedics & Sports Med., Inc., 2011 Ohio 3199 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “This court affirms the judgment because (1) the trial court did not admit any evidence of sympathy or apology in violation of R.C. 2317.43, (2) the trial court exercised proper discretion in weighing the probative value of the autopsy photograph and related medical testimony…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.43(A)(1) — 1 case
Janice Welch v. United States (6th Cir. 2025). “In opposition to Welch’s summary judgment motion, the Government argued, in part, that the written and recorded evidence of the Institutional Disclosure conversation was inadmissible under the Ohio Apology Statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.43(A)(1), which states: In any civil…”
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.