Renfrow v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 371
Ohio2014Background
- Renfrow, as executor/representative of her husband Gerald Renfrow’s estate, sued Norfolk Southern for asbestos-related claims, including FELA, alleging his exposure caused lung cancer.
- Gerald Renfrow smoked about a pack and a half daily for 50 years and died from lung cancer with brain metastases; death certificate listed lung cancer with brain metastases as cause.
- Renfrow sought to prevent administrative dismissal under R.C. 2307.93 by proffering prima facie evidence of impairment and causation (per R.C. 2307.92).
- Renfrow relied on hospital records, smoking history, asbestos exposure, an affidavit from a coworker, and a report from Dr. Rao (not treating Gerald Renfrow).
- The trial court denied dismissal, the appellate court affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding Rao was not a “competent medical authority” under R.C. 2307.91(Z) and thus Renfrow failed the prima facie standard.
- The case was remanded with instruction that Renfrow may reinstate if she later presents proper prima facie evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treating VA physician can serve as a competent medical authority for prima facie evidence. | Renfrow asserts VA doctors may provide the required opinion where traditional doctor-patient relations are present. | Norfolk Southern contends Rao does not satisfy R.C. 2307.91(Z) and thus cannot support prima facie evidence. | Dr. Rao is not a competent medical authority; failure to meet 2307.91(Z) bars prima facie showing. |
| Whether the evidence, including Rao’s report, can satisfy substantial contributing factor under 2307.93/92 when the claimant is a smoker. | Renfrow argues the aggregate evidence should suffice to show substantial contributing factor. | R.C. 2307.91(FF) requires a substantial contributing factor shown by a competent medical authority; Rao fails. | Even considering Rao, the evidence does not prove substantial contributing factor to a degree required; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co., 120 Ohio St.3d 228 (2008) (defines substantial contributing factor and causation framework in asbestos claims)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Bogle, - (-) (explains statutory purposes and procedural prioritization in asbestos litigation (syllabus context cited))
- Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) (limits of administrative agency authorization and subpoena enforcement in federal context)