Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2743 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.43 (2026)

Expert testimony on liability issues in medical claim

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 13, 2004
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 215 - 125th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall be deemed competent to give expert testimony on the liability issues in a medical claim, as defined in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code, unless:

(1) Such person is licensed to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery by the state medical board or by the licensing authority of any state;

(2) Such person devotes three-fourths of the person's professional time to the active clinical practice of medicine or surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery, or to its instruction in an accredited university;

(3) The person practices in the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant. The court shall not permit an expert in one medical specialty to testify against a health care provider in another medical specialty unless the expert shows both that the standards of care and practice in the two specialties are similar and that the expert has substantial familiarity between the specialties.

(4) If the person is certified in a specialty, the person must be certified by a board recognized by the American board of medical specialties or the American board of osteopathic specialties in a specialty having acknowledged expertise and training directly related to the particular health care matter at issue.

(B) Nothing in division (A) of this section shall be construed to limit the power of the trial court to adjudge the testimony of any expert witness incompetent on any other ground.

(C) Nothing in division (A) of this section shall be construed to limit the power of the trial court to allow the testimony of any other witness, on a matter unrelated to the liability issues in the medical claim, when that testimony is relevant to the medical claim involved.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Crosswhite v. Desai, 580 N.E.2d 1119 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crosswhite v. Desai, 580 N.E.2d 1119 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 11× “Horton was incompetent to testify pursuant to R.C. 2743.43, and (2) that Dr. Horton’s statements failed to support a deviation from accepted standards of care by Dr.”
Wise v. Doctors Hosp. North, 455 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 9× “At the time of the trial in this action, R.C. 2743.43 was superseded by Evid. R. 601(D), but the rule incorporates the provisions of the statute and the arguments made by the parties therefore apply to Evid.”
Price v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 515 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “601(D); R.C. 2743.43(A). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that her evidence presented a submissive case.”
Brannon v. Austinburg Rehab. & Nursing Ctr., 943 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “601(D) and R.C. 2743.43 to what is an ordinary negligence claim against a nursing home.”
Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 231 , this court upheld the constitutionality of the Act’s limitations on medical malpractice experts contained in R.C. 2743.43. We found that that classification — qualifications for experts in medical claims not applied to expert witnesses in other malpractice cases —…”
Joyce-Couch v. Desilva, 602 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “601(D) incorporated the provisions of R.C. 2743.43 with respect to expert testimony on medical liability issues.”
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986). “3d 290 ], paragraph three of the syllabus, the court held that R.C. 2743.43 was not violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Cotten v. Phillips, 633 S.E.2d 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 52 -184c (2006) (same as Alabama hut trial court may allow testimony of expert from another discipline who proves to possess sufficient training, experience, and knowledge as a result of practice or teaching in a related field); Fla.”
Morris v. Child.'s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 597 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “601(D) incorporates into the evidence rule on competency the provisions of R.C. 2743.43 6 regarding expert testimony on medical liability issues, and thereby includes the definition of a “medical claim” set forth in former R.”
Bernal v. Lindholm, 727 N.E.2d 145 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Recognizing that Frank “must qualify to testify under [R.C. 2743.43] and [Evid.R. 601(D) ],” appellant stated in her complaint that Frank’s practice consisted of seventy-five percent “active clinical practice,” within the meaning of R.”
Evans v. Chapman, 502 N.E.2d 1012 (Ohio 1986). “21, and special restrictions on medical malpractice expert testimony under R.C. 2743.43. It may well be that the General Assembly granted medical claimants the mechanism for extending the statute of limitations as a quid pro quo for all these additional restrictions applicable…”
Goldstein v. Kean, 461 N.E.2d 1350 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “3d 63 ]: “The phrase ‘active clinical practice,’ contained in R.C. 2743.43(A), primarily describes those physicians who spend three-fourths of their professional time treating patients, but it also includes the physician-specialist whose work is so related or adjunctive to…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.43(A) — 10 cases
Price v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 515 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “601(D); R.C. 2743.43(A). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that her evidence presented a submissive case.”
Crosswhite v. Desai, 580 N.E.2d 1119 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “Horton was incompetent to testify pursuant to R.C. 2743.43, and (2) that Dr. Horton’s statements failed to support a deviation from accepted standards of care by Dr.”
Morris v. Child.'s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 597 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “601(D) incorporates into the evidence rule on competency the provisions of R.C. 2743.43 6 regarding expert testimony on medical liability issues, and thereby includes the definition of a “medical claim” set forth in former R.”
Berlinger v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 589 N.E.2d 1378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Joyce-Couch v. Desilva, 602 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “601(D) incorporated the provisions of R.C. 2743.43 with respect to expert testimony on medical liability issues.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.43(A)(2) — 3 cases
Wise v. Doctors Hosp. North, 455 N.E.2d 1032 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “At the time of the trial in this action, R.C. 2743.43 was superseded by Evid. R. 601(D), but the rule incorporates the provisions of the statute and the arguments made by the parties therefore apply to Evid.”
Goldstein v. Kean, 461 N.E.2d 1350 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “3d 63 ]: “The phrase ‘active clinical practice,’ contained in R.C. 2743.43(A), primarily describes those physicians who spend three-fourths of their professional time treating patients, but it also includes the physician-specialist whose work is so related or adjunctive to…”
Cromer v. Child.'s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 2012 Ohio 5154 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.43(A)(4) — 1 case
Richter v. State, 2025 Ohio 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.43(a)(3) — 1 case
In re Special Task Force, 2014 Ark. 47 (Ark. 2014).
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.