2020 Ohio 1027
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- De’Carla Day worked for Rochling-Glastic (Glastic) as a press operator performing repetitive tasks (launching 42–50 lb rovings overhead and scooping resin into ~12 lb buckets ~100+ times per shift).
- On May 30, 2014 Day experienced acute severe right-shoulder pain while scooping resin; she sought ER care and was treated by Dr. Catherine Watkins‑Campbell (occupational/family medicine).
- Day’s workers’ compensation claim was initially allowed for a right shoulder sprain/strain; her application to expand the claim to include subacromial impingement, a partial‑thickness supraspinatus tear, and a SLAP lesion with paralabral cyst was denied by the Industrial Commission.
- At trial Day presented lay testimony about job duties and expert medical testimony from her treating physician attributing the two surgical‑level shoulder conditions to chronic cumulative repetitive trauma culminating in an acute event; the jury found those two conditions compensable and not primarily caused by natural degeneration.
- Glastic moved for directed verdict and later for JNOV, arguing insufficiency of evidence on proximate causation and on proof of a discernible time span; both motions were denied and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient medical evidence that Day’s shoulder conditions were directly and proximately caused by repetitive work motions | Day: treating physician’s expert testimony tied injuries to repetitive job activities and an acute event | Glastic: no competent medical proof that repetitive workplace motions caused the conditions | Court: Expert testimony was competent and, when construed most strongly for Day, supplied sufficient evidence for the jury to find proximate causation; motions denied |
| Whether Day proved the injury developed over a discernible period (distinguishing work‑related cumulative trauma from natural degeneration) | Day: physician testified symptoms progressed over weeks/months and culminated in an acute event on May 30, 2014 | Glastic: no specific timeframe shown; could be degenerative change | Court: Evidence supported a recent, progressive development over a limited time frame (not remote degeneration); sufficiency established |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 77 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1996) (directed verdict tests legal sufficiency, not weight or credibility of evidence)
- Kanjuka v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 151 Ohio App.3d 183 (8th Dist. 2002) (same standard for reviewing JNOV as for directed verdict)
- Grau v. Kleinschmidt, 31 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 1987) (standards for JNOV review)
- Posin v. ABC Motor Court Hotel, 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1976) (evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of the party against whom JNOV is sought)
- Oster v. Lorain, 28 Ohio St.3d 345 (Ohio 1986) (de novo review applies to JNOV)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2002) (de novo review for directed‑verdict motions)
- Village v. Gen. Motors Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1984) (repetitive‑trauma injuries developing over time can be compensable; must distinguish from natural deterioration)
- Miller v. Emery Oil Co., 80 Ohio App.3d 693 (12th Dist. 1992) (plaintiff must show causal connection over a discernible period of time)