Trial Practice Cases: Miscellaneous (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Trial Practice: 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.

Barber v. Ryan (7/26/10)

Order which granted a motion to compel medical examination and also granted a motion in limine prohibiting any reference to the medical examination as independent was not a final appealable order.

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

Chasteen v. Stone Transport, Inc. (4/16/10)

Because record on appeal did not contain evidence that injured worker informed trial court that he had reviewed requested medical records and found them to be devoid of information relating to condition at issue, Court of Appeals cannot find that trial court abused its discretion in granting employer’s motion to compel.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Singer
Appellate District: 6

Clay v. Lakeview Farms, Inc. (2/22/10)

Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant continuance so doctor could examine new evidence.

Vote: 1-0, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Rogers
Appellate District: 3

Coler v. Anchor Acquisition, L.L.C. (12/31/12)

Trial court improperly found that injured worker did not have a pre-existing condition when the parties stipulated that a pre-existing condition existed.

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

Collins v. Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc. (1/3/14)

Trial court abused discretion when it granted BWC request for global medical release without first conducting an in camera inspection of the records to determine which ones were related to the claim.

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

Darden v. Cooper Power Tools, Inc. (9/30/04)

Court did not err in permitting worker to proceed with claim for additional allowance of occupational disease in claim which had been initially filed as an injury.

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

Gomcsak v. U.S. Steel Corp. (5/12/08)

Trial court properly restricted testimony of expert witness to contents of report, consistent with local court rule.

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

Higgins v. Buehrer (10/5/16)

Court must review all evidence admitted at trial before issuing ruling.

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

Hippely v. Lincoln Elec. Holdings, Inc. (10/13/11)

Where conflicting evidence was presented to jury, the jury can judge what weight to give the evidence and jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

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

Kinsey v. Apex Bolt & Machine Co. (2/22/13)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment against injured worker who did not produce any evidence to establish causal connection between injury and work.

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

Leasure v. UVMC (8/11/17)

Trial court’s decision after bench trial to deny request for additional allowance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

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

Moore v. Administrator (9/30/15)

Although a trier of fact is not required to adopt uncontradicted expert testimony, it cannot arbitrarily ignore it; therefore, trial court in bench trial improperly denied right to participate where evidence supported expert’s opinion that worker suffered injury due to work incident and nothing in record contradicted that opinion.

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

Nelson v. Colossal Constr. Co., Inc. (2/3/17)

When no objections were filed to magistrate’s decision at trial court, Court of Appeals review is limited to situations where a “plain error” occurred.

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

Nevinski v. Dunkin’s Diamonds (6/30/10)

Requirements for establishing a workers’ compensation claim as an injury claim are different from those for establishing a workers’ compensation claim as an occupational disease claim. Court is required to utilize a distinct test for each method. A trial court decision which combined elements of both tests was improper because court is required to apply a distinct test for each type of claim.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam
Appellate District: 9

Patterson v. Indus. Power Sys. (6/7/02)

On case involving additional allowance, Court did not err in barring testimony about initial condition because that condition was not at issue; nor did Court err in refusing to permit claimant to amend complaint in response to jury interrogatories.

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

Starkey v. Builders Firstsource Ohio Valley, L.L.C. (4/9/10)

Claim for aggravation may be considered on appeal to court even if claim was only pursued under theory of direct causation administratively.

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

Steele v. Crawford Machine, Inc. (5/18/09)

Trial court acted properly when it considered workers’ compensation claim under both injury and occupational disease theories even though claim had only been allowed administratively as an occupational disease

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

Studnicka v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (9/21/12)

Trial court improperly found that condition did not exist before the injury when all the medical testimony indicated the existence of a pre-existing condition.

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

Thomas v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (10/7/16)

Evidentiary errors, which included permitting hearsay in doctor’s testimony and improperly admitting claim file from previous workers’ compensation claim which contained prejudicial hearsay diagnoses and irrelevant information about benefits, justified trial court’s decision to grant new trial.

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

Tunks v. Chrysler Group, L.L.C. (11/22/13)

Trial court properly excluded evidence that injured worker had a previous unrelated allowed condition arising from unrelated incident.

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

Vogelmeier v. Ohio Power Co. (11/19/14)

In claim for additional allowance, trial court did not err in permitting injured worker to provide evidence about previously allowed conditions; nor did trial court err in preventing employer from providing evidence about disallowed conditions relating to other parts of the body.

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