Bradley v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
2014 Ohio 3205
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bradley injured her right ankle at work on March 10, 2005; BWC allowed a sprain benefit.
- Bradley sought RSD (complex regional pain syndrome) benefits; district and staff hearing officers granted, then appeal declined; RSD claim disallowed.
- ODOT challenged Bradley's right to participate in the workers' compensation fund for RSD; trial court held Bradley lacked RSD.
- During pendency, Bradley pursued a major depressive disorder claim arising from the 2005 injury; temporary disability benefits were terminated after MMI finding.
- ODOT unsuccessfully appealed multiple stages; Bradley obtained a later Franklin County Common Pleas judgment on RSD and depression claims.
- ODOT moved for summary judgment in 2013; Bradley’s responsive brief was struck for Rule 21.01 noncompliance; trial court granted summary judgment for ODOT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper without sworn testimony | Bradley asserts Civ.R. 56(C) material not properly considered. | ODOT argues proper striking under Loc.R. 21.01; summary judgment proper. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue raised. |
| Whether RSD and depression link respected physical-facts rule | Bradley contends RSD connection to depression contradicts prior order. | ODOT shows no link between depression and March 10 injury after RSD disallowance. | No error; depression not proven to arise from compensable injury. |
| Whether there remained a genuine issue of material fact | Bradley filed affidavits and depositions asserting facts for trial. | ODOT properly struck; Bradley failed to respond timely per local rules. | No genuine issue; trial court properly granted summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden shifting in Civ.R.56 requires specific facts to oppose SJ)
- McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 2005) (injury definition and compensability for workers' comp)
- Ellinger v. Ho, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1079, 2010-Ohio-553 (Ohio 2010) (physical-facts rule applicability to conflicting testimony)
- Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 2003) (non-oral hearing notice and Civ.R.56 considerations)
- McDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 42 Ohio St.2d 8 (Ohio 1975) (concepts of injury arising from employment for workers' comp)
- Hoyt v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2005-Ohio-6367 (Ohio 2005) (evidence consideration in SJ when no opposing affidavit)
- Riley v. Montgomery, 11 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (summary-judgment evidentiary standards; need specific facts)