Fields v. Buehrer
2014 Ohio 1382
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In July 2011 Fields, an employee of Franklin County Residential Services, injured her right foot at work and received workers' compensation for contusion, fracture and crushing injury; she later sought an additional allowance for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).
- An initial DHO denied CRPS based on IME reports from Drs. Stanko and Steiman; an SHO vacated that denial relying on Fields' treating physicians; the Industrial Commission refused further review; employer appealed to common pleas court and Fields filed a competing complaint to affirm the IC decision.
- Residential Services moved for summary judgment, supported by Dr. Steiman’s affidavit applying the AMA Guides (5th Ed., §16.5e) and medical records asserting Fields did not exhibit the Guides’ requisite objective signs for CRPS.
- Fields sought a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance to obtain additional affidavits/depositions (treating physicians and the IME physician); the court denied the continuance, struck parts of Fields’ opposition, and granted summary judgment for Residential Services.
- Fields appealed eight assignments of error challenging denial of the Civ.R. 56(F) continuance, reliance on the Guides as diagnostic standard, admissibility/authenticity of certain records, and the propriety of summary judgment on a medical issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Fields a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance | Fields argued she needed additional time to obtain affidavits/depositions of treating and IME physicians to oppose summary judgment | Residential Services argued Fields failed to show particularized reasons why discovery/depositions could not be completed before the deadline and had prior access to reports | Denial of the Civ.R. 56(F) continuance was not an abuse of discretion; Fields’ affidavit lacked required particularity and she failed to show diligence |
| Whether the AMA Guides (5th Ed., §16.5e) are the sole diagnostic standard for CRPS | Fields contended the Guides are not the only reliable diagnostic criteria and she needed time to rebut employer’s reliance on them | Residential Services relied on Dr. Steiman’s opinion applying the Guides and argued Fields produced no evidence meeting any diagnostic criteria | Court acknowledged Bradley allowed use of the Guides as a learned treatise but did not hold they are the sole standard; summary judgment upheld because Fields produced no evidence she met the Guides’ (or other) criteria |
| Admissibility/authenticity of treating physicians’ records used in summary judgment | Fields asserted some records were inauthentic/inadmissible and thus improper to support summary judgment | Residential Services relied on those medical records and IME affidavit to show absence of CRPS signs | Fields waived challenge by not moving to strike; court permissibly considered the records; no genuine issue of material fact existed |
| Whether summary judgment was improper on a medical diagnosis (CRPS) because it is a factual issue for the trier of fact | Fields argued medical issues must go to a jury and cannot be resolved on summary judgment | Residential Services argued it had met its burden showing no evidence Fields met diagnostic criteria and Fields failed to rebut with admissible expert evidence | Summary judgment proper: viewing evidence in Fields’ favor, no genuine issue of material fact and employer entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden in summary judgment)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (summary judgment principles)
- Bennett v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (2012) (claimant bears burden to prove right to participate in BWC fund on de novo appeal)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, 189 Ohio App.3d 560 (2010) (standard for reviewing denial of Civ.R. 56(F) continuance)