2015 Ohio 3969
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Larry Moore, an assembler, sustained a right-shoulder injury using a torque wrench on Sept. 3, 2009 and received workers’ compensation for that claim but continued working.
- On Feb. 3, 2010 Moore felt a more severe "pop" in his right shoulder while using a torque wrench, sought treatment, and was later diagnosed with an acute right rotator-cuff tear by orthopedist Dr. Suresh Nayak.
- Dr. Nayak treated Moore (including arthroscopic surgery) and testified that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the rotator-cuff tear and shoulder sprain/strain were proximately caused by the Feb. 3, 2010 workplace incident.
- The Industrial Commission denied Moore’s 2010 claim; some treatment related to the rotator-cuff injury had been paid under the 2009 claim number, but Dr. Nayak could not explain that billing choice.
- The common pleas court denied Moore’s right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund for the Feb. 3, 2010 injury, concluding there was essentially one injury being compensated under the 2009 claim.
- The court of appeals reviewed the trial court’s denial as against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed, remanding to allow Moore to participate for the Feb. 3, 2010 injury and to address costs and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore proved by a preponderance that the Feb. 3, 2010 work event proximately caused a new rotator-cuff tear | Moore: Dr. Nayak’s uncontroverted expert testimony and objective studies show the Feb. 3, 2010 event caused the tear | Administrator/Sheffer: Treatment and compensation under the earlier 2009 claim show a single compensable injury | Held for Moore: appellate court found Dr. Nayak’s opinion supported by objective evidence and that the trial court improperly disregarded it; reversed trial court denial |
| Whether the trial court could resolve allocation of treatment between claim numbers | Moore: allocation is for the Industrial Commission, not a bar to participation | Defendants: payments under 2009 demonstrate single injury and justify denying new claim | Held: Allocation is for the Industrial Commission; it cannot be used to deny participation in the fund |
| Standard of review for participation claim after IC order | Moore: entitlement is reviewed de novo/manifest-weight standard on evidence | Defendants: (implicit) defer to trial court factfinding | Held: Court applies manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review to the trial-court factual resolution in R.C. 4123.512 appeals |
| Whether uncontradicted expert testimony may be disregarded | Moore: trier of fact may not arbitrarily ignore uncontradicted expert testimony | Defendants: trial court credited its view of the overall record | Held: Expert testimony cannot be arbitrarily rejected; the record did not support the trial court’s rejection of Dr. Nayak’s opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Conrad, 81 Ohio St.3d 475, 692 N.E.2d 205 (Ohio 1998) (trial court reviews participation issue de novo under R.C. 4123.512)
- Brecount v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 166 Ohio St. 477 (Ohio 1957) (Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine extent of participation)
- Boston v. Daugherty, 12 Ohio App.3d 8, 465 N.E.2d 1321 (1st Dist. 1984) (extent-of-disability and allocation decisions lie with the Commission)
- Fox v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 162 Ohio St. 569, 125 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1955) (claimant must prove causal connection by a preponderance)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard explained)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Brown, 5 Ohio St.3d 133, 449 N.E.2d 449 (Ohio 1983) (trier of fact may not arbitrarily ignore expert testimony)
- State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12, 885 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 2008) (corollary on evaluating uncontradicted expert evidence)