Samuel v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
2017 Ohio 388
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Angela Samuel, a Progressive employee working primarily from home, hand-delivered FMLA-related medical paperwork to Progressive's HR reception area on a Sunday evening after prior LOA misplacement/denial of her documents and a threatened termination deadline.
- While leaving, Samuel slipped on a substance (she said coffee), fell, and injured her right side; she was taken to the hospital about an hour after the fall.
- Progressive and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation argued the injury was not work-related, was idiopathic (related to chronic dizziness), and disputed aspects of Samuel’s account; the Industrial Commission denied the claim.
- Samuel appealed under R.C. 4123.512 to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; the trial court granted summary judgment for Progressive finding the injury not work-related.
- On de novo appeal to the Eighth District, the court found Samuel failed to show she was performing a required job duty or that her employer instigated/subsidized the Sunday hand-delivery; records also supported a medical (idiopathic) cause for the fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samuel's injury arose out of and in the course of employment | Samuel was compelled to hand-deliver paperwork due to LOA misplacements and threat of termination, making the trip work-related | Progressive: no requirement to hand-deliver; policy required fax/email/mail; Samuel’s delivery was a personal choice outside work hours | Held: Not work-related — no evidence employer required or instigated Sunday hand-delivery |
| Whether Samuel’s fall was idiopathic (medical cause) rather than caused by a workplace hazard | Samuel said she slipped on coffee on the stairs | Progressive: medical history of dizziness/blurred vision and records/statements suggest dizziness caused fall, not coffee | Held: Evidence supported an allopathic/idiopathic cause; Samuel’s medical history undermined sole reliance on a workplace hazard |
| Admissibility/consideration of exhibits and omitted records at summary judgment | Samuel contended trial court blocked or lacked certain records that would show she was required to deliver paperwork | Progressive noted hearing transcript and deposition excerpts were in the record; no exhibits were submitted or objected to at trial | Held: Court permissibly considered the record as presented; Samuel failed to proffer those documents as evidence at trial |
| Whether genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment | Samuel asserted disputed facts about LOA notices, prior misplacements, and cause of fall | Progressive argued record (transcripts, deposition, Burian affidavit) showed no genuine dispute on essential elements | Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for Progressive affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (establishing de novo trial scope on R.C. 4123.512 appeals)
- Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 361 (de novo nature of workers’ comp appeal and trial anew)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 118 (summary judgment rule restated)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment)
- White Motor Corp. v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.2d 156 (claimant must show injury arose out of and in the course of employment)
- Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Ahern, 119 Ohio St. (clarifying personal pursuits vs. employment duties for compensability)
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (worker-comp factors and limits of bright-line rules)
- Lord v. Daugherty, 66 Ohio St.2d 441 (factors assessing scope of employment and compensability)