COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70725 VICTOR BILTZ, : ACCELERATED DOCKET : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND v. : : OPINION MARYMOUNT HOSPITAL, ET AL., : : PER CURIAM : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 12, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 302501 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: James J. McGrath P.O. Box 31177 Independence, Ohio 44131-0177 For defendants-appellees: Kris H. Treu Jeffrey A. Healey Irene C. Keyse-Walker ARTER & HADDEN 1100 Huntington Building 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1475 -2- PER CURIAM: Appellant's claim is a medical claim under R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) which states in pertinent part: "Medical claim" means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, against any employee or agent of a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, or against a registered nurse or physical therapist, and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. In Rome v. Flower Mem. Hosp. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 14, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted this language to include actions arising from procedures which were "ancillary" and "inherently necessary" to the "identification and alleviation of a physical or mental illness, disease, or defect." Specifically, the court held that an action arising from a fall from an x-ray table caused by the alleged negligence of the hospital's staff was a medical claim under R.C. 2305.11(D)(3). Id. at 16. In this case, Biltz alleged that he was placed on the "hospital's Emergency Room bed" by hospital staff to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of his grand mal seizure. His claim against the hospital arises from the allegedly negligent use of medical equipment by hospital personnel. Under Rome, supra, the trial court correctly concluded that he presented a medical claim as defined by R.C. 2305.11(D)(3). Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. Because appellant's claim is a medical claim, R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) controls and its one-year statute of limitations applies. "In a medical malpractice case, the statute of -3- limitations starts to run upon the occurrence of a `cognizable event.'" Flowers v. Walker (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 549. Balikov v. Kuschnir (July 25, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69771, unreported. A "cognizable event" is the occurrence of facts and circumstances which lead, or should lead, the patient to believe that the physical condition or injury of which she complains is related to a medical diagnosis, treatment, or procedure that the patient previously received. Flowers, 63 Ohio St.3d at 549. See, also, Akers v. Alonzo (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 422, 425 (cognizable event is "some noteworthy event * * * which does or should alert a reasonable person-patient that an improper medical procedure, treatment or diagnosis has taken place." [emphasis in original]). We find that Biltz's fall constitutes the "cognizable event" under Flowers, supra, and that the applicable statute of limitations began to run on October 31, 1994. It is clear that both appellant and his family were aware of his fall contemporaneous with its occurrence. At that time, Biltz had the duty to diligently investigate and determine: (1) whether negligence was the proximate cause of his fall; and, (2) the identity of any tortfeasors. Holmes v. Community College of Cuyahoga Cty. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 678, 684, citing, Flowers, supra. In March, 1995, appellant possessed knowledge of the facts which subsequently formed the basis of his complaint. Despite such knowledge, he declined to file this action until January 30, 1996. His failure to timely file the within action is fatal to his claim. -4- R.C. 2305.11(B) bars his action and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken. Judgment affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .