Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 2011 Ohio 6712

Thomas was a Progressive claims adjuster injured by two aggressive pit bulls in 2007 while on a service call.
She alleged PTSD and inability to work, requiring care and support after the incident.
She received disability benefits from Progressive and later was denied workers’ compensation for the psychiatric condition.
She filed a complaint on August 31, 2010, asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
The trial court granted Progressive’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; Thomas appeals the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thomas states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress	Thomas argues facts show extreme/outrageous conduct	Progressive contends conduct not extreme/outrageous or intentional	No; claim dismissed for failure to plead outrageous conduct
Whether the two negligence claims are tolled by R.C. 2305.16	Thomas argues PTSD tolls statute from accrual	Progressive argues no unsound mind at accrual; tolling not applicable	No tolling; claims barred by statute of limitations

Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (elements of IIED and outrageous conduct)
Pyle v. Pyle, 11 Ohio App.3d 31 (Ohio App. 3d 1983) (adopted test for IIED)
Hale v. City of Dayton, 2002-Ohio-542 (Ohio 2002) (adopts Yeager framework with emphasis on outrageousness)
York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (notice pleading; factual allegations presumed true for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review)
Fisher v. Ohio University, 63 Ohio St.3d 484 (Ohio 1992) (PTSD not sufficient unsound mind for tolling)
Bowman v. Lemon, 115 Ohio St.326 (Ohio 1926) (tolling requires unsound mind at accrual)
Almanza v. Kohlhorst, 85 Ohio App.3d 135 (Ohio App. 3d 1992) (illustrates tolling analysis under 2305.16)
Livingston v. Diocese of Cleveland, 126 Ohio App.3d 299 (Ohio App. 1998) (PTSD insufficient to satisfy unsound mind)