Strickler v. Columbus, 2014 Ohio 1380

Carla J. Strickler, a Columbus police officer, slipped on loose shell casings at a firing range on April 18, 2007 and injured her right knee.
Post-fall care included ER treatment, physical therapy, an MRI (May 11, 2007), and later arthroscopy (May 22, 2008) during which chondral fracture and osteoarthritic changes were observed and cartilage was repaired.
Strickler filed a workers' compensation claim; the Industrial Commission allowed participation for chondral fracture but disallowed recognition of "osteoarthritis right knee" and "substantial aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis right knee."
On appeal to the common pleas court, Strickler sought participation for both (chondral fracture and substantial aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis); the trial court allowed the chondral fracture but denied substantial aggravation.
The trial court found Strickler failed to prove the pre-existence of osteoarthritis by a preponderance because her treating surgeon (Dr. Van Steyn) testified the arthritis pre-existed the fall but did not explain the basis for that opinion; competing experts testified timing could not be determined from the record.
The appellate majority affirmed, concluding the trial court reasonably discounted the unsubstantiated expert opinion; one judge dissented, arguing the evidence required the court to recognize either osteoarthritis or substantial aggravation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Strickler proved substantial aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis	Strickler: treating surgeon opined the fall substantially aggravated pre-existing osteoarthritis; MRI soon after fall showed arthritis	Defendants: no reliable evidence that arthritis pre-dated fall; timing cannot be determined from record	Denied — Strickler failed to prove pre-existence and substantial aggravation by preponderance
Whether trial court applied a higher burden than law requires	Strickler: court effectively required more than preponderance because it rejected her evidence	Defendants: court applied proper preponderance standard and weighed evidence appropriately	Denied — appellate court found no record showing misstatement of burden; manifest weight review supports result
Whether the judgment is against manifest weight of the evidence	Strickler: the overall evidence (MRI, surgeon's diagnosis, arthroscopy findings) mandates recognition of arthritis or its substantial aggravation	Defendants: evidence was ambiguous as to timing; expert opinion lacked foundation	Denied — judgment supported by competent, credible evidence; trial court reasonably discounted unexplained expert opinion

Bennett v. Adm'r, Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (Ohio 2012) (elements for workers' compensation participation: injury in course of employment and proximate causation)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (appellate review standard for manifest weight of the evidence)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies manifest-weight analysis and construction of evidence in favor of the judgment)
State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 2008) (trial court may reject expert testimony but must have an objectively present reason to do so)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (discussion of weight of the evidence concept)