Background
Mark M. Zlojutro, representing himself, sued Nickey Duckworth and the Cleveland Institute of Medical Massage over an April 2023 massage session. He alleged that Duckworth, whom he identified as a student and his therapist, painfully squeezed his earlobes and caused permanent injury. He also alleged that the institute refused to prepare an incident report and “threw [him] out.”
Zlojutro filed suit in April 2025 and classified the action as medical malpractice on a court designation form. The defendants sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the action was a medical claim barred by Ohio’s one-year limitations period and that Zlojutro had failed to attach the affidavit of merit required for certain medical claims. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District reversed. Construing the pleadings and reasonable inferences in Zlojutro’s favor, the court held that the allegations did not establish at the pleading stage that his claim arose from medical diagnosis, care, or treatment or that the defendants fell within the categories enumerated in Ohio’s statutory definition of a medical claim. The complaint did not identify why Zlojutro sought the massage, describe it as treatment for a diagnosed condition, specify the type of massage, or establish the facility’s licensing, services, or Duckworth’s qualifications beyond calling her a student and therapist.
The court also held that Zlojutro’s selection of “medical malpractice” on the designation form was not dispositive because the substance of a claim, rather than its label, controls. Accordingly, the pleadings alone did not justify applying the one-year medical-claim limitations period or the affidavit-of-merit requirement. The court did not hold that the action was definitively an ordinary-negligence claim; it held only that dismissal as a medical claim was premature. It overruled Zlojutro’s remaining assignments of error and treated his discovery argument as moot because the docket showed no motion to compel or ruling on one.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s classification of a case as medical malpractice on a designation form does not control when the complaint’s substance does not establish a medical claim.
- A massage-related injury claim is not necessarily subject to Ohio’s one-year medical-claim limitations period or affidavit-of-merit requirement.
- Judgment on the pleadings was improper because the complaint left unresolved whether the alleged injury arose from medical diagnosis, care, or treatment and whether the defendants were covered medical providers.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Ohio courts must determine the nature of a claim from its factual substance and the statutory definition of a medical claim, not merely from labels or a defendant’s business name. At the pleading stage, unresolved facts about the purpose of the service and the provider’s status must be viewed in the plaintiff’s favor.
The ruling permits Zlojutro’s case to proceed on remand but does not resolve liability, classify the claim conclusively as ordinary negligence, or determine which limitations period will ultimately govern after further factual development.