2018 Ohio 3970
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mary Schaefer, a nursing assistant, alleged she was kicked at work on January 4, 2009, and sought additional workers’ compensation allowances in 2016 for several spinal and shoulder conditions she says were aggravated by the 2009 injury.
- The Industrial Commission denied the additional allowances (denials not in record); Schaefer sued Lake Hospital and the BWC Administrator in Lake County Common Pleas in 2016.
- Lake Hospital moved for summary judgment, relying chiefly on deposition testimony of Sch.’s treating physician, Dr. Sami Moufawad.
- Dr. Moufawad testified his opinion that Schaefer’s conditions were preexisting and became symptomatic after the 2009 injury; he relied on post‑injury MRIs, clinical examination, course of treatment (including injections), and Schaefer’s report of no preinjury symptoms.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lake Hospital, finding no objective evidence of substantial aggravation; the court of appeals reversed, concluding Lake Hospital failed to carry its initial summary‑judgment burden because Dr. Moufawad’s testimony and report supplied objective clinical findings when viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schaefer’s preexisting conditions were "substantially aggravated" by the 2009 injury under R.C. 4123.01(C)(4) | Schaefer: testimony, post‑injury MRIs, clinical exam and treatment (injections) create a genuine issue of objective evidence of substantial aggravation | Lake Hospital: Dr. Moufawad relied only on Schaefer’s subjective history; subjective complaints without objective documentation cannot show substantial aggravation | Reversed trial court: viewing evidence favorably to Schaefer, Dr. Moufawad’s report and testimony raise a genuine issue of material fact; employer failed to meet initial summary‑judgment burden |
| Whether objective evidence must be pre‑injury (baseline) | Schaefer: objective post‑injury records and expert testimony can supply a pre‑injury reference point | Lake Hospital: absence of pre‑injury imaging/records defeats objective proof | Court: objective evidence need not be pre‑injury; a pre‑injury reference point can be established by expert testimony or post‑injury records |
| Whether the employer met its initial Dresher burden on summary judgment | Schaefer: employer did not negate all reasonable inferences from treating physician’s testimony and report | Lake Hospital: physician’s reliance on subjective history negates objective proof so summary judgment was appropriate | Court: employer failed to affirmatively show absence of genuine issue because it did not rebut Dr. Moufawad’s objective clinical assertions |
| Admissibility/weight of treating physician’s report and deposition | Schaefer: physician’s statements about MRIs, clinical findings, and treatment support objective aggravation | Lake Hospital: physician’s equivocal testimony and lack of specific imaging in record render his opinion insufficient | Court: construed in favor of nonmoving party, the treating physician’s testimony sufficed to preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review and summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and burden shifting)
- Bennett v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (worker must prove causation by preponderance)
- Starkey v. Builders FirstSource Ohio Valley, LLC, 130 Ohio St.3d 114 (substantial aggravation can establish compensability)
- Lake v. Anne Grady Corp., 999 N.E.2d 1203 (post‑injury imaging and vague references insufficient absent explanation)