Hornschemeeier v. Buehrer
2017 Ohio 7021
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dwayne Hornschemeier injured his right knee at work and filed a workers' compensation claim. The BWC allowed sprain, lateral meniscus tear, and loose bodies, but disallowed chondromalacia of the right knee.
- While Hornschemeier’s appeal was pending in common pleas court under R.C. 4123.512, the Industrial Commission later allowed a new claim for right‑knee osteoarthritis.
- Hornschemeier sought allowance of chondromalacia in the de novo court hearing; only he and his orthopedic surgeon testified.
- The magistrate found in Hornschemeier’s favor and would have allowed chondromalacia; the BWC objected.
- The trial court sustained BWC’s objections, reasoning the surgeon’s testimony equated chondromalacia with osteoarthritis and thus res judicata barred a separate allowance; the court disallowed the chondromalacia claim.
- On appeal, this Court held res judicata was an improper analytical vehicle but affirmed because Hornschemeier failed to meet his burden to prove chondromalacia as distinct from the already‑allowed osteoarthritis based on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred relitigation after BWC allowed osteoarthritis while chondromalacia remained disallowed | Hornschemeier: chondromalacia is a distinct condition; res judicata requirements not met | Buehrer/BWC: medical testimony equates chondromalacia with osteoarthritis, so allowance of osteoarthritis precludes a separate claim | Court: res judicata was not the correct analysis, but case resolved against plaintiff on the merits because record showed no distinct proof of chondromalacia |
| Whether Hornschemeier met his burden in a de novo R.C. 4123.512 hearing to prove chondromalacia separate from osteoarthritis | Hornschemeier: surgeon testified to chondromalacia diagnosis and its causation by the work injury | BWC: record evidence shows surgeon described chondromalacia as a form of arthritis—essentially the same as osteoarthritis—so no separate condition proven | Court: Plaintiff bears burden; only evidence equated the two conditions, so he failed to prove a separate compensable condition and claim was properly disallowed |
| Whether the trial court’s use of res judicata produced a public‑policy or jurisdictional error | Hornschemeier: treating the conditions as identical frustrates workers’ compensation purposes and jurisdictional rules | BWC: allowing only one knee condition is consistent with evidence and jurisdictional limits | Court: policy/jurisdiction arguments moot because plaintiff did not meet evidentiary burden; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (establishing R.C. 4123.512 appeals are de novo and claimant bears burden to prove entitlement)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (standard for manifest‑weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)