Thomas v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
2016 Ohio 7246
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Pamela Thomas, a Dayton teacher, alleged a workplace injury on Sept. 16, 2009; she filed Claim #1 (contusion left knee; left foot sprain) and later Claim #2 (substantial aggravation/acceleration of pre-existing left-knee osteoarthritis).
- The Industrial Commission (DHO/SHO) disallowed Claim #1 (no new industrial injury) and refused further appeals; Thomas later filed Claim #2 which the BWC dismissed as barred by res judicata / prior adjudication.
- Thomas appealed administratively and in common pleas court; the trial court initially dismissed Claim #2 but set Claim #1 for jury trial. At trial the jury found for defendants on the two claimed conditions in Claim #1.
- Thomas moved for a new trial, arguing trial irregularities: redaction and use of a modified Dr. Wunder report, exclusion of certain cross-examination (re: Concentra/Dr. Lee diagnoses and a FROI), admission of a voluminous 2007 workers’ compensation file, and confusion caused by interlocutory rulings about Claim #2. The court granted a new trial generally, then clarified which claims were affected.
- On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed a new trial on Claim #1 (procedural/ evidentiary irregularities deprived Thomas of a fair de novo jury review) but reversed the grant of a new trial as to Claim #2 (holding Claim #2 dismissal by the commission was not subject to de novo re-litigation in the trial court under the cited authorities).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court erred in reopening/declining to give pretrial dismissal final effect (Claim #2 jurisdiction / res judicata) | Thomas: Claim #2 was a separate claim; the IC’s dismissal on res judicata was an adjudication of participation rights and thus appealable; Ward allows consideration if condition was administratively addressed. | BWC/DPS: Claim #2 was not a final, appealable IC decision on the right to participate; res judicata and lack of IC jurisdiction barred Claim #2. | Court of appeals: Trial court erred to the extent it granted a new trial on Claim #2; Claim #2 is barred under res judicata/IC rulings per precedent—reversed as to Claim #2. |
| 2) Admissibility of Concentra/Dr. Lee diagnoses and FROI (hearsay) | Thomas: Excluding the FROI/exhibit that her own expert relied on and blocking cross-examination prejudiced her; redactions distorted defense expert testimony. | Defendants: Concentra/Dr. Lee diagnoses are hearsay not within Evid.R. 803(6); Hytha/Ruth/H evidentiary rules support exclusion. | Court: Exclusion of Concentra/Dr. Lee diagnoses and the FROI diagnoses was proper (hearsay); those rulings were not erroneous. |
| 3) Admission of non-treating physicians’ opinions in Dr. Wunder’s report and the 2007 workers’ compensation file | Thomas: Redactions and allowing modified report plus admission of full 2007 file prejudiced jury and prevented fair de novo review. | Defendants: File and Dr. Wunder’s report were relevant to show pre-existing condition and lack of new injury; defendants relied on those materials. | Court: Inclusion of non-treating physicians’ diagnoses in Wunder’s report and admission of the entire 2007 WC file were improper and prejudicial; these irregularities justified a new trial on Claim #1. |
| 4) Whether a new trial is an appropriate remedy for the identified irregularities | Thomas: Errors at trial (admissions/exclusions and interrelated interlocutory rulings) deprived her of a fair trial; new trial warranted. | Defendants: A pretrial dismissal is not a trial; a new trial cannot be grounded on a motion-to-dismiss ruling; no abuse of discretion shown. | Court: Applying abuse-of-discretion and legal-review standards, court affirmed new trial on Claim #1 (irregularities affected fairness) but reversed new trial as to Claim #2 (legal error in reopening administrative dismissal). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Kroger Co., 106 Ohio St.3d 35 (2005) (trial court may only adjudicate conditions that were addressed in the administrative order appealed)
- Felty v. AT&T Techs., 65 Ohio St.3d 234 (1992) (only final IC orders resolving right to participate are appealable under R.C. 4123.512)
- Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (1969) (new-trial orders that turn on discretionary matters reviewed for abuse of discretion; pure legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata precludes re-litigation of matters that were or could have been litigated in prior action)
- Hytha v. Schwendeman, 40 Ohio App.2d 478 (1974) (criteria for admitting medical diagnoses from records under hearsay exceptions)