Occupational Disease Cases: Statute of Limitations (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Occupational Disease: Statute of Limitations

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.

Byrd v. Midland Ross/Grimes Aerospace (12/19/03)

Silicosis is a scheduled occupational disease, with specific requirements for diagnosis; therefore, for statute of limitations purposes, evidence of a diagnosis which does not meet the requirements set forth by the schedule cannot demonstrate that a worker had knowledge of a condition.

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

Chieffo v. YSD Industries, Inc. (5/11/04)

Summary judgment could not be granted in case involving occupational disease statute of limitations because there was a material factual issue over date diagnosis based on x-ray was known by claimant and over whether x-ray constituted treatment.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Judge Waite
Appellate District: 7

Davis v. Taylor & Bogus Foundry (4/10/03)

Occupational disease claim was not timely filed. None of the three possible elements for triggering the statute of limitation (which is two years after diagnosis, treatment, or disability due to the disease, whichever is latest) could be satisfied because (1) sufficient medical diagnosis of disease had been made more than two years before claim was filed; (2) x-ray which occurred more than two years before claim was filed was part of treatment; and (3) date disability due to the disease began does not apply to retired worker.

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

Dombelek v. Admr. (9/23/03)

Factual questions prevent summary judgment on statute of limitations issue. [For occupational disease statute of limitations, there is an issue of when treatment started or when disease was diagnosed.] What starting date of treatment for occupational disease was is matter for trier of fact to determine based on totality of circumstances and date disease was diagnosed depends not just on diagnosis but whether claimant “knew or should have known” of diagnosis of disease due to the occupation.

Vote: 2-0. 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Waite
Appellate District: 7

Kourouniotis v. Delta Plating, Inc. (4/14/03)

Two year statute of limitations for filing occupational disease claim began when employee terminated employment, not when he first requested and received disability compensation due to occupational disease.

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

Schuller v. US Steel Corp. (9/26/03)

Where claimant had not been treated for asbestos, triggering element of statute of limitations (date of treatment) had not begun to run and claim was timely filed.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Grendell
Appellate District: 11

Varner v. Ford Motor Co. (5/31/07)

Death claim must be filed within two years of death.

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

Weisenauer v. Am. Standard, Inc. (4/14/14)

To be timely, an occupational disease claim must be filed within two years of the last to occur of three events. In a case where two of the three events had happened more than two years before the claim was filed, the Court found that a worker who never quit work due to the effects of his occupational disease (the third event) timely filed the claim, even though he had stopped working more than two years before filing the claim for other reasons.

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