Trial Practice Cases: Summary Judgment (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Trial Practice: Summary Judgment

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.

Dean v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (6/3/10)

Court properly granted summary judgment in asbestosis death claim where employer based summary judgment motion on wife’s deposition testimony that she lacked knowledge that husband was exposed to asbestos in employment and wife did not present any evidence of such exposure in response to motion.

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

Hoelscher v. KBO, Inc. (7/7/17)

Trial court improperly granted summary judgment for employer when injured worker had presented psychiatric testimony that flow-through psychiatric condition had been caused by allowed physical injury.

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

Marshall v. Oncology/Hematology Care, Inc. (5/28/14)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment for employer where no evidence indicated a causal connection between the injury and the condition claimant sought to have allowed.

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

Roberts v. Republic Storage Systems Co. (4/25/05)

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment on basis of natural deterioration where evidence when viewed in light most favorable to claimant does not demonstrate natural deterioration.

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

Shamberger v. NHV Physicians Professional Corp. (8/20/03)

Because employer and BWC did not refer to any Civil Rule 56 evidence in motion for summary judgment, no dispute of material fact existed and trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment for employer/BWC.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Baird
Appellate District: 9

White v. Buehrer, 2017-Ohio-8254 (10/20/17)

Factual issues regarding cause of injury precluded summary judgment.

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