Hornschemeier v. Buehrer
2017 Ohio 7021
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dwayne Hornschemeier injured his right knee at work and filed a workers’ compensation claim; BWC allowed sprain, lateral meniscus tear, and loose bodies but disallowed chondromalacia of the right knee.
- While Hornschemeier’s appeal of the chondromalacia denial was pending, the Industrial Commission later allowed a new claim for right-knee osteoarthritis.
- At a de novo hearing in the Clermont County Common Pleas Court, only Hornschemeier and his orthopedic surgeon testified; the magistrate found for Hornschemeier and would have allowed chondromalacia.
- BWC objected; the trial court rejected the magistrate, concluded the surgeon testified chondromalacia and osteoarthritis are the same condition, and applied res judicata to deny the additional chondromalacia claim.
- The court of appeals agreed res judicata was not the correct doctrine but affirmed because Hornschemeier failed to meet his burden at the de novo hearing: the only evidence equated chondromalacia with osteoarthritis, and Hornschemeier already participates in the fund for osteoarthritis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars asserting a second allowed condition (chondromalacia) after osteoarthritis was later allowed | Hornschemeier: trial court erred applying res judicata; requirements not met | BWC: trial court correctly prevented duplicative allowance where conditions are the same | Court: res judicata was not the proper mode, but decision affirmed on other grounds (failure of proof) |
| Whether chondromalacia is a distinct compensable condition from osteoarthritis | Hornschemeier: chondromalacia is distinct and should be allowed in addition to osteoarthritis | BWC: evidence did not show a distinct condition; allowed osteoarthritis covers claimant’s right-knee pathology | Court: record evidence (surgeon’s testimony) described chondromalacia as a form of arthritis—essentially the same as osteoarthritis—so claimant failed to prove a distinct condition |
| Whether the claimant carried the burden of proof at the de novo R.C. 4123.512 hearing | Hornschemeier: testified and presented surgeon; contends burden satisfied | BWC: only equivocal testimony was offered; burden unmet | Court: claimant bears burden in de novo review and failed to meet it because evidence did not distinguish the conditions |
| Whether trial court’s ruling frustrated public policy or workers’ comp purposes | Hornschemeier: denying chondromalacia frustrates system’s purpose and public policy | BWC: allowing duplicative claims would be improper; no policy reason to override failure of proof | Court: policy arguments immaterial given claimant’s failure to prove a separate compensable condition |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (2012) (R.C. 4123.512 appeals are de novo and claimant bears burden to prove right to participate)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest weight of the evidence)