The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision in the case of Mark M. Zlojutro v. Nickey Duckworth, et al., allowing the case to proceed after determining that the trial court made an error regarding the nature of the claim. The ruling, released on October 8, 2026, affects individuals who seek legal recourse for injuries sustained during massage therapy, particularly in cases where the classification of the claim is disputed.
Mark M. Zlojutro filed a lawsuit against Nickey Duckworth, a massage therapist, and the Cleveland Institute of Medical Massage (CIMM) after he alleged that Duckworth caused him significant pain during a massage session on April 6, 2023. Zlojutro claimed that Duckworth squeezed his earlobes with excessive force, resulting in permanent damage. He contended that the institute did not file an incident report and dismissed him after the incident. Zlojutro classified his complaint as a medical malpractice case, which led to a dispute over the applicable statute of limitations.
The case began in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where Zlojutro filed his complaint on April 4, 2025. The defendants, Duckworth and CIMM, responded by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Zlojutro's claim was subject to a one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims under Ohio law. They also contended that Zlojutro failed to file an affidavit of merit, which is required for medical claims. Zlojutro countered that his case should be classified under the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants on December 15, 2025, concluding that Zlojutro's complaint failed to meet the requirements for a medical claim, including the statute of limitations and the affidavit of merit. Zlojutro then appealed the decision, raising several assignments of error regarding the court's classification of his case and its failure to compel the defendants to respond to his discovery requests.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Lisa B. Forbes, found that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court stated, "We do not find that Zlojutro’s designation form... is dispositive. Courts routinely look at the substance of a plaintiff’s claim rather than relying on any label attached to it." The appellate court emphasized that Zlojutro's allegations, if proven, could indicate that he did not assert a medical claim as defined by Ohio law.
The court noted that Zlojutro did not claim that his massage was intended to treat a medical condition, nor did he provide evidence of any medical diagnosis prior to the massage. The court highlighted that the mere mention of a "medical" facility does not automatically classify a claim as medical malpractice. The court concluded that the trial court's dismissal of Zlojutro's complaint was premature and reversed the decision, allowing the case to proceed.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving massage therapy and personal injury claims. It clarifies that not all injuries sustained during massage therapy automatically fall under the medical malpractice category. Instead, courts must examine the specifics of each case to determine the appropriate classification and applicable statute of limitations. This decision may encourage other individuals who have suffered injuries during similar treatments to seek legal recourse without the immediate concern of being classified under a stricter statute of limitations.
Moving forward, the case will return to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings. The appellate court's ruling allows Zlojutro the opportunity to present his case, potentially leading to a trial or settlement discussions. Details regarding whether the defendants will appeal this decision were not available in the court filing. The court's decision may also influence other pending cases involving similar issues of classification in personal injury claims.