Trial Practice Cases: Medical Evidence/Testimony/Exam
(Court of Appeals)
Click on the case name to read the decision on the
Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the
decision of a lower court or
Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are
excluded.
Chiropractor's
opinion is valid evidence even though one question asked him to give
his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Celebreeze
Appellate District: 8
Trier of fact cannot arbitrarily ignore expert testimony; evidence supported allowance of radiculopathy.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
Appellate District: 1
Trial court properly required injured worker to establish that
they suffered from CRPS, even though Industrial Commission order
considered RSD, because medical testimony established that both
terms described the same medical condition.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Klatt
Appellate District: 10
Trial
court improperly granted motion in limine to exclude doctor's testimony
because, when considered in favor of claimant, testimony could be
related to conditions sought in claim.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Guckenberger
Appellate District: 1
Where
the causal connection between an injury and the incident which caused
it involves a matter of common knowledge, expert medical testimony is
not required.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rice
Appellate District: 11
Trial court acting as finder of fact is entitled to judge the credibility of a doctor.
Vote:3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Piper
Appellate District: 12
Trial
court improperly granted summary judgment because doctor's opinion that
condition was caused by injury was sufficient; doctor's opinion is not
undercut by statement that an injury under circumstances which exist in
this case is less likely than not.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bryant
Appellate District: 10
Trial court properly granted summary judgment where doctor could not
testify to any degree of probability that work activities caused death.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Sadler
Appellate District: 10
Trial
court properly granted summary judgment against injured worker who
failed to provide expert medical testimony to support workers'
compensation claim which involved question of causal connection which
was beyond knowledge of lay witnesses or jury.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District: 5
Doctor provided valid opinion relating to causal relationship.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Pietrykowski
Appellate District: 6
Trial
court should not permit testimony from a doctor who refused to accept
that a previously allowed condition and previously authorized surgery
were related to the industrial injury.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rogers
Appellate District: 3
Trial
court's decision to exclude doctor's statement portion of short
term disability application not abuse of discretion where doctor
indicated that form was filled out by a member of his staff and did not
reflect his opinion.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Cupp
Appellate District: 3
Doctor's
testimony about cause of injury which indicated doctor's opinion with
greater than 50% likelihood was sufficient to support jury's verdict in
favor of injured worker.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bryant
Appellate District: 10
Medical testimony is necessary where injuries are "internal and elusive."
Vote:
3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Dorrian
Appellate District: 10
Where
examining doctor did not remember examining claimant, but prepared
report at time of examination, trial court properly permitted doctor to
testify where testimony consisted of doctor reading report and
answering questions explaining procedures and tests employed.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Cupp
Appellate District: 3
Medical evidence which had been discredited on cross-examination was not sufficient to support causation.
Vote:
3-0
Opinion by:
Dinkelacker
Appellate District: 1
Medical
expert's opinion, which was based on history given by injured worker,
was admissable even though injured worker could not remember exact
words she used in giving history because treating doctor is allowed to
testify about history given by the patient and questions about the
validity of the history go to the weight, not the admissability, of the
evidence.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Preston
Appellate District: 3
An unsworn medical report is not valid evidence in response to a motion for summary judgment.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Calabrese
Appellate District: 8
BWC
is not entitled to a new independent medical examination just because a
claim is appealed to court when it has already had an independent
medical examination at the administrative level.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Singer
Appellate District: 6
Court
did not err in admitting testimony of expert witness where medical
records were not properly admitted into evidence but facts underlying
doctor's opinion were.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Lanzinger
Appellate District: 6
Treating
psychologist was qualified to testify as expert witness even though he
concurred with diagnosis of psychiatrist instead of initially
formulating diagnosis.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Osowik
Appellate District: 6
Opinion of treating doctor regarding fibromyalgia was sufficient to render his opinion admissable under Evid.R. 702(C).
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Grady
Appellate District: 2
Where a
doctor has examined the injured worker, reviewed his records and
taken his history, the doctor has provided a sufficient basis for his
opinion for it to be admitted as evidence.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by:
Judge Williamowski
Appellate District: 3
On
trial of claim for aggravation of condiction, trial court improperly
excluded doctor's expert testimony regarding injured worker's inability
to work and how those symptoms demonstrated that she suffered an
aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hoffman
Appellate District: 5
Court properly allowed testimony of medical experts whose opinions were mainly based on facts or data perceived by the doctor.
Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Judge Delaney
Appellate District: 5
Trial
court improperly granted summary judgment against injured worker who
failed to provide expert medical testimony to support workers'
compensation claim which involved question of causal connection which
was within knowledge of lay witnesses or jury.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District: 5
Opinion of medical expert as to cause of injury was valid even though expert admitted other possible causes existed.
Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Sweeney
Appellate District: 8
Issue
of whether the hypothetical question included proper summary of facts
went to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility, and could be
resolved by the jury.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bressler
Appellate District: 12
Expert
medical testimony is required where an injury is internal and
elusive in nature and unaccompanied by any observable external
evidence.
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge McGrath
Appellate District: 10
Injured at Work?
Stewart Jaffy &
Associates can help you receive the workers’ compensation
benefits you
are entitled to. We are based in Columbus and represent
injured
workers throughout Ohio before the BWC, Industrial Commission
and
in court.
We also represent people who have social security
disability claims or who have a disability claim before another state
administrative agency (PERS, STRS, SERS or police and fire fighters
disability).
Initial consultations with potential clients are
free. If you are interested in talking with us about a
potential
case, call us at (614) 228-6148.
Stewart Jaffy &
Associates Co.,
LPA | Attorneys at Law
306 E. Gay St. | Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-6148 | Fax: (614) 228-6140
http://www.jaffylaw.com
Please read our
legal
notice.
