Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45 (2026)

Admissibility of reimbursement policies or determinations

✓ 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) As used in this section:

(1) "Health care provider" means any person or entity against whom a medical claim may be asserted in a civil action.

(2) "Insurer" means any public or private entity doing or authorized to do any insurance business in this state. "Insurer" includes a self-insuring employer and the United States centers for medicare and medicaid services.

(3) "Medical claim" has the same meaning as in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code.

(4) "Reimbursement determination" means an insurer's determination of whether the insurer will reimburse a health care provider for health care services and the amount of that reimbursement.

(5) "Reimbursement policies" means an insurer's policies and procedures governing its decisions regarding the reimbursement of a health care provider for health care services and the method of reimbursement.

(B) Any insurer's reimbursement policies or reimbursement determination or regulations issued by the United States centers for medicare and medicaid services or the Ohio department of medicaid regarding the health care services provided to the patient in any civil action based on a medical claim are not admissible as evidence for or against any party in the action and may not be used to establish a standard of care or breach of that standard of care in the action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 25× “In an effort to abrogate the collateral source rule adopted in Pryor , the General Assembly originally enacted R.C. 2317.45 as part of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, Am.”

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2007 Ohio 6948 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 12× “{¶ 14} In Sorrell, we examined one facet of this law, R.C. 2317.45, which placed a significant limitation on the collateral-source rule adopted in Pryor v.”

State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 1999 Ohio 123 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 25× “2d 504 (R.C. 2317.45, part of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, enacted by Am.”

Sorrell v. Thevenir, 69 Ohio St. 3d 415 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 40× “In the cases before us, R.C. 2317.45 is assailed as being unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the following provisions of the Ohio Constitution: Section 16, Article I (due process, right to a remedy and open courts), Section 2, Article I (equal protection), and…”

Buchman v. Bd. of Educ., 652 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 8× “2d 504 , we considered the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.45 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1661, 1694) under Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

Litsinger Sign Co. v. Am. Sign Co., 227 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 12× “The foregoing assumes that the reasonable notice provisions of Section 2317.45, Revised Code, have been complied with.”

Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1995 Ohio 136 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 8× “2d 504 , we considered the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.45 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1661, 1694) under Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

Felden v. Ashland Chem. Co., 631 N.E.2d 689 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “Specifically, Felden argues that R.C. 2317.45, which mandates the deduction of collateral benefits such as workers’ compensation benefits from a jury’s monetary award, is unconstitutional.”

Deaton v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 134 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 18× “In addition, the Court must adjust the judgment to reflect workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to O.R.C. § 2317.45. The Court grants Deaton’s motion for costs, denies Deaton’s motion for prejudgment interest, and concludes that the adjustment to the verdict for Deaton’s…”

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 106× “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

Brandt v. Pompa, 2022 Ohio 4525 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 3× “2d 504 (1994) (former R.C. 2317.45, enacted by Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 142 Ohio Laws, Part 1, 1661, 1694, as part of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, violated the rights to a jury trial, due process, and equal protection and the right to a remedy); Galayda v.”

McMullen v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 725 N.E.2d 1117 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 4× “2d 504 , syllabus, we held that “R.C. 2317.45 violates Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(A)(1) — 9 cases

State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999). “In an effort to abrogate the collateral source rule adopted in Pryor , the General Assembly originally enacted R.C. 2317.45 as part of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, Am.”

Buchman v. Bd. of Educ., 652 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 1995). “2d 504 , we considered the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.45 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1661, 1694) under Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 1999 Ohio 123 (Ohio 1999). “2d 504 (R.C. 2317.45, part of the Tort Reform Act of 1987, enacted by Am.”

McMullen v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 725 N.E.2d 1117 (Ohio 2000). “2d 504 , syllabus, we held that “R.C. 2317.45 violates Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and is unconstitutional in toto.”

Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1995 Ohio 136 (Ohio 1995). “2d 504 , we considered the constitutionality of R.C. 2317.45 (Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1661, 1694) under Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(A)(1)(a) — 1 case

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(A)(1)(b) — 1 case

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(A)(2) — 3 cases

Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins., 695 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1998).

Kennedy v. W. Reserve Senior Care, 2023 Ohio 264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 1998 Ohio 387 (Ohio 1998).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(A)(l)(a)(ii) — 2 cases

Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1991).

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B) — 2 cases

Nott v. Homan, 616 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

Lamb v. Vill. of Quincy, 636 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2) — 4 cases

Deaton v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 134 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “In addition, the Court must adjust the judgment to reflect workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to O.R.C. § 2317.45. The Court grants Deaton’s motion for costs, denies Deaton’s motion for prejudgment interest, and concludes that the adjustment to the verdict for Deaton’s…”

State ex rel. Clark v. Indus. Comm'n, 751 N.E.2d 967 (Ohio 2001).

Sorrell v. Thevenir, 1994 Ohio 38 (Ohio 1994).

State ex rel. Clark v. Indus. Comm., 2001 Ohio 1265 (Ohio 2001).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(a) — 1 case

Jeffers v. Phillips Ready Mix, 593 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(a)(ii) — 1 case

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(b) — 3 cases

Deaton v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 134 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “In addition, the Court must adjust the judgment to reflect workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to O.R.C. § 2317.45. The Court grants Deaton’s motion for costs, denies Deaton’s motion for prejudgment interest, and concludes that the adjustment to the verdict for Deaton’s…”

Jeffers v. Phillips Ready Mix, 593 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

Winningham v. North Am. Resources, 812 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1992). “In particular, the Ohio legislature enacted Ohio Rev.Code § 2317.45, in response to the collateral source rule of the common law.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(c) — 1 case

Deaton v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 134 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “In addition, the Court must adjust the judgment to reflect workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to O.R.C. § 2317.45. The Court grants Deaton’s motion for costs, denies Deaton’s motion for prejudgment interest, and concludes that the adjustment to the verdict for Deaton’s…”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(c)(i) — 2 cases

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 2007 Ohio 6948 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 14} In Sorrell, we examined one facet of this law, R.C. 2317.45, which placed a significant limitation on the collateral-source rule adopted in Pryor v.”

Jeffers v. Phillips Ready Mix, 593 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(2)(c)(ii) — 1 case

Deaton v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 134 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Ohio 1991). “In addition, the Court must adjust the judgment to reflect workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to O.R.C. § 2317.45. The Court grants Deaton’s motion for costs, denies Deaton’s motion for prejudgment interest, and concludes that the adjustment to the verdict for Deaton’s…”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.45(B)(3) — 1 case

Nott v. Homan, 616 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).

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.