Burnett v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
2016 Ohio 5501
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2016Background
- On Feb 17, 2010 Burnett, a UPS Freight tractor-trailer driver, struck a metal skid shoe that detached from an ODOT snowplow; parties stipulated ODOT was negligent and liability was not contested.
- Burnett developed lower back pain radiating to his left leg, underwent MRI showing an L4/L5 disc protrusion, and had a microdiscectomy on July 6, 2010.
- He missed work from Feb 23, 2010 to Oct 16, 2010 (about 34 weeks), then briefly returned but later stopped working in Aug 2011 after onset of depressive symptoms.
- Plaintiff claimed ongoing physical and psychological injuries from the accident; defendants disputed causation for post‑Oct 2010 conditions and challenged certain medical testimony.
- Treating physician Dr. Thomas Hubbell offered opinions on causation; defendants moved to strike portions of his deposition for failure to disclose him as an expert and for failing to meet Stinson standards.
- Magistrate found ODOT causally responsible for the L4/L5 injury and awarded damages, but rejected causation for later chronic back problems and psychological injuries; collateral offsets (BWC settlement and short‑term disability) reduced recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation for L4/L5 disc injury | Accident caused the herniation and required surgery | Any preexisting back problems caused ongoing symptoms; plaintiff delayed reporting accident to some providers | Held: More probable than not the Feb 17, 2010 accident caused the L4/L5 injury and resulting surgery; causation established for that injury |
| Causation for post‑Oct 2010 chronic back pain | Continued intermittent back pain was a sequel of the accident | Post‑surgery pain is comparable to preexisting intermittent back pain; plaintiff declined ordered MRI; treating physician opinions on chronic causation unpersuasive | Held: No causal link established between the accident and plaintiff’s chronic back complaints after Oct 2010 |
| Causation for psychological injuries (depression, concentration problems) | Depression and concentration deficits resulted from the failed recovery/stress of injury and loss of work capability | Multiple non‑accident stressors, limited psychiatric treatment, and lack of persuasive expert causation; Dr. Hubbell’s causation testimony unreliable and partly stricken | Held: No persuasive causal connection between the accident and plaintiff’s psychological conditions; causation not established |
| Admissibility of Dr. Hubbell’s expert testimony | Medical records and deposition support causation opinions; records were produced in discovery | Dr. Hubbell was not disclosed as an expert per local rules and Civ.R. 26; portions of his causation testimony fail Stinson standards | Held: Certain pages of Hubbell’s deposition testimony were stricken for nondisclosure/insufficiency; some opinions (L4/L5 causation) were admissible but many causation opinions were excluded or found unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (establishes duty/breach/injury proximate‑cause test for negligence)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (standard for admissibility of expert medical causation testimony)
- Vaught v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 98 Ohio St.3d 485 (court’s role in preventing unfair advantage from discovery noncompliance)