Trial Practice Cases: Medical Evidence / Testimony / Exam — Miscellaneous (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Trial Practice: Medical Evidence / Testimony / Exam — Miscellaneous

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.

Brannon v. Buehrer (2/28/13)

Employer entitled to summary judgment where injured worker did not present medical evidence indicating that work caused or substantially aggravated the injured worker’s medical condition.

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

Battista v. Ameritech Corp./SBC (6/12/08)

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

Bell v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (3/30/12)

Trier of fact cannot arbitrarily ignore expert testimony; evidence supported allowance of radiculopathy.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
Appellate District: 1

Bradley v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (2/7/12)

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

Brown v. Mabe (1/12/07)

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

Budzevski v. OhioHealth Corp. (10/30/12)

Equivocal doctor’s testimony does not support allowance of additional condition. Doctor’s testimony became equivocal when he testified on cross-examination that he was “not sure” if injured worker suffered condition due to injury.

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

Coleman v. Hamilton (9/19/11)

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

Cranford v. Buehrer (1/23/15)

Trial court did not err by excluding sworn statement of doctor, taken without providing opportunity for employer to cross-examination, even though doctor had died before trial.

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

Crisster v. Zimmer Surgical, Inc. (11/13/15)

Doctor’s affidavit indicating that injured worker’s knee injury occurred due to his work, which was supported by attached medical records including statements from injured worker regarding history of injury was sufficiently based on “facts or data” to satisfy rules of evidence and create material issue of fact sufficient to withstand motion for summary judgment.

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

Cuckler v. Admr. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (4/19/17)

Expert opinion that worker suffered injury based on subjective complaints and objective evidence was sufficient to withstand summary judgment.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Hoover
Appellate District:
 4

Cyrus v. Yellow Transp., Inc. (12/21/06)

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

Davis v. Ryan (1/31/12)

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

Ellis v. Columbus Developmental Ctr. (3/13/18)

Trial court improperly granted summary judgment against injured worker based on doctor’s equivocal testimony because portions of doctor’s testimony supported injured worker’s claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Dorrian
Appellate District: 10

Fields v. Buehrer (3/31/14)

Where injured worker sought to participate for a condition they allegedly suffered, uncontested doctor’s report indicating that injured worker did not suffer from that condition supported trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment against injured worker.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge O’Grady
Appellate District:
10

Ford v. Sunbridge Care Ents. (3/17/16)

Although doctor’s report should not have been admitted as evidence, improper admission of report was harmless error in light of other testimony and did not affect outcome of case.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District:
 8

Haynes v. Kielmeyer (8/10/07)

Doctor provided valid opinion relating to causal relationship.

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

Hickle v. Hayes-Albion Corp. (8/20/07)

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

Holman v. Shiloh Grove Ltd. Partnership (5/3/16)

Court’s editing of transcripts used to present doctor’s testimony did not prejudice claimant, because even though resulting testimony was disjointed, the disjointed nature of the resulting testimony was minor and not prejudicial to claimant.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
 10

Howe v. DTR Industries, Inc. (9/6/05)

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

Hyden v. Kroger Co. (12/7/06)

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

Jimmison v. G.C.R.T.A. (7/18/13)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment against worker when medical records supporting his claim did not establish that his injuries occurred due to his work.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Jones
Appellate District: 8

Jolette v. A T L M, Inc. (7/18/13)

Claimant’s failure to notify doctors about subsequent injury rendered their testimony that her work injury caused her medical condition invalid.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Stewart
Appellate District: 8

Johnson v. Cassens Transport Co. (8/2/04)

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

Krull v. Ryan (9/22/10)

Medical evidence which had been discredited on cross-examination was not sufficient to support causation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Dinkelacker
Appellate District: 1

Ley v. Procter & Gamble Co. (3/8/10)

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

McIntyre v. Arrow Internatl., Inc. (2/22/07)

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

Moore v. E.I. DuPontde Nemours Co. (12/10/15)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment because although widow provided evidence of unusual workplace stress, she failed to present evidence that the unusual workplace stress was the cause of her husband’s heart attack. Affidavit from treating doctor, who was a family doctor, did not establish that doctor was qualified to give opinion on cause of heart attack.

Vote: 1-0, 2 concur injudgment only
Opinion by: Judge McFarland
Appellate District:
4

Myers v. Toledo (6/24/05)

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

Phipps v. Internatl. Paper Co. (9/16/13)

Doctor’s cross-examination testimony that injured worker’s pain due to allowed condition was a factor (but not a cause) of a psychological condition did not contradict his testimony on direct and redirect that the allowed condition did not proximately cause the psychological condition.

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

Preston v. Lathrop Co., Inc. (12/10/04)

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

Reneau v. Con-Way Trans. Serv. Inc. (11/30/07)

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

Riblet v. Dayton Foods Ltd. Partnership (2/16/07)

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

Schnipke v. Safe-Turf Installation Group, L.L.C. (9/7/09)

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

Shaffer v. Canton Christian Home (4/23/07)

On trial of claim for aggravation of condition, 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

Short v. Shelly & Sands, Inc. (6/11/08)

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

Szulinski v. Kellison & Co (1/16/14)

Trial court properly admitted medical report of doctor who conducted independent medical exam for employer into evidence when offered by injured worker. Report not barred as hearsay because it qualifies as an admission by someone authorized by the employer to make a statement (Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(c)); since report qualifies under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(c), admission did not deprive employer or BWC’s right to cross-examine a witness.

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

Thornton v. Conrad (7/1/04)

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

Warner v. DMAX Ltd., L.L.C. (10/23/15)

Work history
provided by injured worker gave treating doctor sufficient knowledge of work conditions for doctor to provide valid opinion that the work caused the injured worker to suffer a gradually developing injury.

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

Williams v. Minute Men Select, Inc.
(10/21/16)

Doctors’ diagnoses in medical records were properly excluded because they did not meet requirements for admission under any hearsay exception.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs separately
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District:
5

Williams v. Parker Hannifin Corp. (4/19/10)

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