Nelson v. Colossal Constr. Co., Inc.
2017 Ohio 399
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Worker Robert Nelson fell from a ladder on April 18, 2011, injuring his head and left ankle; the BWC allowed multiple work-related conditions including left calcaneus fracture, tarsal tunnel syndrome, post‑traumatic arthropathy, and depressive disorder.
- Nelson underwent multiple foot surgeries (initial fixation, tarsal tunnel release, subtalar fusion attempts) and ongoing pain treatment; persistent pain, numbness, swelling, discoloration, and gait disturbance led to referral to pain specialist Dr. Shahid.
- Dr. Shahid diagnosed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) of the left lower extremity based primarily on history and inspection, without objective temperature measurements, diagnostic testing, or documented differential workup; Nelson filed to amend his BWC claim to add CRPS.
- The BWC ultimately denied amendment; Nelson appealed administratively and then to Montgomery County Common Pleas Court; a magistrate reviewed depositions and evidence and found Nelson failed to prove CRPS, a finding adopted by the trial court.
- Key factual dispute: Dr. Shahid diagnosed CRPS on a first visit without documented exclusion of other causes; Dr. Randolph (defense expert) conducted an IME, found no objective signs of CRPS, criticized the absence of differential diagnostic testing, and concluded the allowed conditions explained Nelson’s complaints.
- Nelson did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision; appellate review was therefore limited to plain‑error review of the magistrate/trial court’s findings and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate used an incorrect Harden/IASP diagnostic criterion for CRPS | Nelson: magistrate used a different fourth‑criterion formulation than experts, so decision rests on wrong standard | BWC: the formulations are substantively the same; magistrate’s citation was descriptive and harmless | Court: No plain error; standards effectively equivalent and mention occurred in factual discussion |
| Whether magistrate plainly erred in finding no differential diagnoses were performed | Nelson: Dr. Shahid testified he ruled out other causes; other physicians’ observations support diagnosis | BWC: record shows no objective testing or documented differential workup; Dr. Randolph’s IME contradicts Nelson | Court: No plain error; credibility calls and Dr. Randolph’s testimony support finding that proper differential diagnoses were not performed |
| Whether it was plain error to credit Dr. Randolph despite his skepticism of CRPS | Nelson: Dr. Randolph is biased against CRPS and effectively rejects the diagnosis wholesale | BWC: Randolph is a qualified expert; skepticism does not disqualify his testimony | Court: No plain error; Randolph can validly testify and did not say he would never accept CRPS; magistrate permissibly relied on his opinions |
| Whether the proceedings show the kind of exceptional circumstances warranting plain‑error relief | Nelson: failures in analysis and reliance on certain testimony require reversal despite no objections | BWC: plain‑error relief is disfavored and not shown; magistrate’s credibility findings supported by record | Court: No plain error; this is not an extremely rare case affecting fairness or integrity of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Steele v. Crawford Machine, Inc., 919 N.E.2d 758 (Ohio Ct. App.) (de novo review from Industrial Commission and standard of appellate review)
- Oswald v. Connor, 16 Ohio St.3d 38 (Ohio 1985) (appellate deference standard when evidence supports result)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil appeals is narrowly applied)
- Care Risk Retention Group v. Martin, 947 N.E.2d 1214 (Ohio Ct. App.) (plain‑error standard; objections to magistrate required to preserve issues)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 975 N.E.2d 1060 (Ohio Ct. App.) (credibility of witnesses is for the factfinder)