2023 Ohio 1530
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Caldwell, a Whirlpool employee, suffered an allowed work injury in March 2015; the last payment on his claim (permanent partial disability) was made January 11, 2017.
- On December 5, 2019 Caldwell sought allowance of additional conditions; the request was denied by the district hearing officer and affirmed on appeal to the staff hearing officer; the Industrial Commission declined further review.
- Caldwell appealed to the Marion County Common Pleas Court on June 19, 2020, then voluntarily dismissed that action on April 30, 2021.
- He refiled the common-pleas appeal on April 20, 2022. Whirlpool moved for summary judgment, arguing R.C. 4123.52 bars modification after five years from the last payment (i.e., after January 11, 2022).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Whirlpool on October 3, 2022; Caldwell appealed raising two assignments: (1) the savings statute should preserve his claim/refiling; (2) this court should revisit Chatfield v. Whirlpool.
- The Third District affirmed: it declined to reexamine Chatfield and held the five-year bar under R.C. 4123.52 extinguished Caldwell’s claim by operation of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-year limitation in R.C. 4123.52 extinguished Caldwell’s workers’ compensation claim despite refiling under the savings statute | Caldwell: the savings statute and prior filing tolled or preserved his ability to pursue the claim | Whirlpool: no payments occurred after Jan. 11, 2017, so R.C. 4123.52’s five-year bar expired the claim on Jan. 11, 2022 | Held: The five-year bar operates by law; refiling under the savings statute did not prevent extinguishment; summary judgment for Whirlpool affirmed |
| Whether this court should reexamine or overrule Chatfield v. Whirlpool | Caldwell: Chatfield should be reconsidered because its application creates due-process and procedural concerns | Whirlpool: no compelling reason to revisit controlling precedent | Held: Court declined to revisit Chatfield and overruled the assignment to reexamine it |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Romans v. Elder Beerman Stores, Corp., 797 N.E.2d 82 (Ohio 2003) (recognizes R.C. 4123.52 permits extinguishment after a period of inactivity)
- Sechler v. Krouse, 383 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio 1978) (claimant must timely invoke Industrial Commission’s continuing jurisdiction)
- Byrd v. Smith, 850 N.E.2d 47 (Ohio 2006) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts to defeat summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Bates Recycling, Inc. v. Conaway, 126 N.E.3d 341 (Ohio App. 2018) (summary-judgment de novo standard)