Injury Cases: Aggravation / Substantial Aggravation (Court ofAppeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Injury: Aggravation / Substantial Aggravation

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Anderson v. Bueher (2/23/16)

Evidence used to initially support allowance of additional conditions as injuries did not also support granting a claim for substantial aggravation of those conditions because it did not differentiate the claims.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District:
 10

Azbell v. Newark Group, Inc. (5/27/08)

Trial court did not err in giving jury instruction on aggravation which stated that it is not necessary to prove that an aggravation “is substantial” in order for an injured worker to participate in the fund for an aggravation (in a case involving an injury before the effective date of the 2006 amendments).

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Judge Edwards
Appellate District: 5

Briggs v. Franklin Pre-Release Ctr. (6/9/14)

An injured worker cannot participate for the substantial aggravation of an injury where the medical evidence does not support a finding that the worker suffered from the condition before the injury occurred.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Powell
Appellate District:
12

Cassens Transport Co. v. Bohl (5/22/12)

Evidence of decreased range of motion after treatment satisfied statutory requirement that “substantial aggravation must be documented by objective diagnostic findings, objective clinical findings, or objective test results.”

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Preston
Appellate District: 3

Coler v. Anchor Acquisition, L.L.C. (9/15/14)

Detailed medical records, and doctor’s testimony about his reliance on those records, satisfied statutory requirement of objective evidence to support claim for substantial aggravation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District:
5

Dunn v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (12/18/06)

Doctor’s testimony supported finding of aggravation of pre-existing arthritic condition due to work injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Cupp
Appellate District: 3

Ellis v. Meritor Automotive (5/23/02)

Evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support jury instruction on aggravation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Farmer
Appellate District: 5

Fabro v. OhioHealth Corp. (11/20/14)

Although R.C. 4123.01(C)(4) requires objective evidence to establish a substantial aggravation, the statute does not require pre-injury documentation that the condition existed.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District:
 10

Gardi v. Lakewood School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (8/8/13)

Statute does not require that an injured worker have medical documentation of a pre-existing condition from before the injury in order to establish substantial aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Keough
Appellate District: 8

Haynik v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (4/17/14)

Injured worker who presented medical testimony, medical records and personal testimony regarding substantial aggravation of knee provided sufficient objective evidence to satisfy statutory requirement of objective evidence to establish substantial aggravation claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District:
8

Hollar v. Pleasant Twp. (12/16/03)

Doctor who treated claimant was qualified to testify as expert, and doctor’s testimony was sufficient to support finding of aggravation of degenerative disc disease.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bowman
Appellate District: 10

Lake v. Anne Grady Corp. (10/25/13)

Although statute does not require existence of pre-injury objective evidence for an injured worker to participate for substantial aggravation, a trial court properly granted summary judgment against a claimant where her doctor did not identify any objective medical evidence to support contention that injured worker suffered a substantial aggravation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Yarbrough
Appellate District:
6

Little v. Dayton Pub. Schools (1/23/15)

Doctor’s opinion of substantial aggravation based only on injured worker’s description of her history did not satisfy statutory requirement of objective evidence necessary to participate for substantial aggravation claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donovan
Appellate District:
 2

Myers v. Ohio Valley Coal Co. (6/22/05)

To participate for aggravation of pre-existing condition, claimant must show existence of pre-existing condition.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donofrio
Appellate District: 7

Pflanz v. Pilkington LOF (6/3/11)

Chiropractor’s opinion that injury was “substantially aggravated” based on MRI and other diagnostic tests supported finder of fact’s finding that injured worker was entitled to participate for a substantial aggravation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hildebrandt
Appellate District: 1

Robinson v. AT&T Network Systems (3/27/03)

Claim for aggravation of post-traumatic degenerative disc disease was barred by res judicata where claim for post-traumatic degenerative disc disease had been denied as a direct injury because issue of aggravation could have been raised in initial proceeding.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Deshler
Appellate District: 10

Rowland v. Buehrer (8/4/17)

Doctor’s testimony, including objective range of motion tests and MRI, provided sufficient evidence of substantial aggravation to withstand summary judgment motion.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donovan
Appellate District: 2

Saurer v. Allied Moulded Products, Inc. (11/22/02)

Claim for wear and tear aggravation of pre-existing injury is eligible for workers’ compensation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Sherck
Appellate District: 6

Schaefer v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc. (9/28/18)

Doctor’s testimony of injured workers’ condition based on exam, medical records and post-injury MRI sufficient objective and subjective evidence of substantial aggravation even though there was no pre-injury objective evidence of injured worker’s condition.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Cannon
Appellate District:
 11

Smith v. Lucas Cty. (3/31/11)

MRI demonstrating condition after injury did not satisfy statutory requirement for “substantial aggravation.”

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Pietrykowski
Appellate District: 6

Strickler v. Columbus (3/31/14)

Medical evidence did not establish that injured worker suffered a pre-existing condition because doctor never explained basis of opinion that injured worker had a pre-existing condition.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Klatt
Appellate District:
10

Swiczkowski v. Senior Care Mgt., Inc. (3/24/06)

Evidence did not support claim for aggravation of pre-existing injury where there was no evidence that condition was worse after incident than it had been before.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Skow
Appellate District: 6

Swogger v. Hopkins Construction (12/29/04)

Trial Court gave improper instruction on aggravation when it failed to instruct jury that aggravation could be compensable injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Whitmore
Appellate District: 9

Walker v. Conrad (1/23/04)

Court gave proper jury instruction on issue of aggravation of injury.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Fain
Appellate District: 2

Woods v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (1/22/16)

Evidence, including doctor’s MRI review and testimony regarding cause of substantial aggravation, satisfied statutory standard for establishing substantial aggravation claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Welbaum
Appellate District:
 2