(A) Upon the filing of any medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim as defined in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code, if all of the parties to the medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim agree to submit it to nonbinding arbitration, the controversy shall be submitted to an arbitration board consisting of three arbitrators to be named by the court. The arbitration board shall consist of one person designated by the plaintiff or plaintiffs, one person designated by the defendant or defendants, and a person designated by the court. The person designated by the court shall serve as the chairperson of the board. Each member of the board shall receive a reasonable compensation based on the extent and duration of actual service rendered, and shall be paid in equal proportions by the parties in interest. In a claim accompanied by a poverty affidavit, the cost of the arbitration shall be borne by the court.
(B) The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with sections 2711.06 to 2711.16 of the Revised Code insofar as they are applicable. Such proceedings shall be conducted in the county in which the trial is to be held.
(C) If the decision of the arbitration board is not accepted by all parties to the medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim, the claim shall proceed as if it had not been submitted to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to this section. The decision of the arbitration board and any dissenting opinion written by any board member are not admissible into evidence at the trial.
(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right of any person to enter into an agreement to submit a controversy underlying a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim to binding arbitration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Stratso v. Song, 477 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Stratso v. Song, 477 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 15דIn October 1980, the case was referred to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.21, which provides for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of medical claims before a three-member arbitration board, and the admissibility of the board’s decision at the subsequent trial if the decision is…”
Schaefer v. Allstate Ins., 590 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 4דWhile “nonbinding arbitration” is an oxymoron, R.C. 2711.21 also implies that other relevant provisions of R.”
Nickey v. Brown, 454 N.E.2d 177 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5דThe case was arbitrated in December 1979, pursuant to R.C. 2711.21. The arbitrators unanimously found in favor of Nickey and awarded him $465,000 in damages.”
Krupansky v. Pascual, 499 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 14ד3850 we face the issue of whether this local rule provision can be applied to medical malpractice claims in light of R.C. 2711.21, the medical malpractice arbitration statute.”
Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 2דAmong the changes were provisions for compulsory (though nonbinding) arbitration, R.C. 2711.21, and an altered statute of limitations, R.”
Smith v. Mitchell, 520 N.E.2d 213 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 8דHowever, the language of R.C. 2711.21 does not clearly express an intention by the legislature to deprive certain medical claim litigants of one of their basic common-law rights.”
Menardi v. Petrigalla, 462 N.E.2d 1246 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 6ד37”) and R.C. 2711.21(E), this matter was referred, by an agreed journal entry, to binding medical malpractice arbitration.”
Sander v. Providence Hosp., 483 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Ohio 1979). · cites it 8דThis matter is before the Court on the motion of defendant Providence Hospital to refer this matter to arbitration pursuant to O.R.C. § 2711.21. This is an action alleging medical malpractice against Dr.”
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986). “This court again pointed out the public policy of the Medical Malpractice Act by stating, at 495: “The Ohio General Assembly, after appropriate study and debate on the subject, recognized the urgency of implementing a reasonable and effective means of helping alleviate the…”
Frysinger v. Leech, 460 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5דOn April 8,1981, the trial court ordered, pursuant to R.C. 2711.21, that the cause of action be submitted to an arbitration panel.”
Costell v. Toledo Hosp., 612 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3ד” We are, however, unaware of any requirement in R.C. 2711.21, or any other statute dealing with a de novo trial, that mandates that the court have new and different evidence than what was submitted in its antecedent proceeding.”
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 1994 Ohio 324 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 4דThe matter was referred to nonbinding "arbitration"4 in accordance with R.C. 2711.21 and local rules of court. However, the trial court ordered that the issue of punitive damages was not to be considered at the "arbitration" hearing.”
Schaefer v. Allstate Ins., 590 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio 1992). “While “nonbinding arbitration” is an oxymoron, R.C. 2711.21 also implies that other relevant provisions of R.”
Krupansky v. Pascual, 499 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “3850 we face the issue of whether this local rule provision can be applied to medical malpractice claims in light of R.C. 2711.21, the medical malpractice arbitration statute.”
Stratso v. Song, 477 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “In October 1980, the case was referred to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.21, which provides for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of medical claims before a three-member arbitration board, and the admissibility of the board’s decision at the subsequent trial if the decision is…”
Stratso v. Song, 477 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “In October 1980, the case was referred to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.21, which provides for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of medical claims before a three-member arbitration board, and the admissibility of the board’s decision at the subsequent trial if the decision is…”
Stratso v. Song, 477 N.E.2d 1176 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “In October 1980, the case was referred to arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.21, which provides for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of medical claims before a three-member arbitration board, and the admissibility of the board’s decision at the subsequent trial if the decision is…”
Schaefer v. Allstate Ins., 590 N.E.2d 1242 (Ohio 1992). “While “nonbinding arbitration” is an oxymoron, R.C. 2711.21 also implies that other relevant provisions of R.”
Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1991). “Among the changes were provisions for compulsory (though nonbinding) arbitration, R.C. 2711.21, and an altered statute of limitations, R.”
Krupansky v. Pascual, 499 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “3850 we face the issue of whether this local rule provision can be applied to medical malpractice claims in light of R.C. 2711.21, the medical malpractice arbitration statute.”
Costell v. Toledo Hosp., 612 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “” We are, however, unaware of any requirement in R.C. 2711.21, or any other statute dealing with a de novo trial, that mandates that the court have new and different evidence than what was submitted in its antecedent proceeding.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2711.21(C)(1) — 1 case
Smith v. Mitchell, 520 N.E.2d 213 (Ohio 1988). “However, the language of R.C. 2711.21 does not clearly express an intention by the legislature to deprive certain medical claim litigants of one of their basic common-law rights.”
Smith v. Mitchell, 520 N.E.2d 213 (Ohio 1988). “However, the language of R.C. 2711.21 does not clearly express an intention by the legislature to deprive certain medical claim litigants of one of their basic common-law rights.”
Menardi v. Petrigalla, 462 N.E.2d 1246 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “37”) and R.C. 2711.21(E), this matter was referred, by an agreed journal entry, to binding medical malpractice arbitration.”
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.