Tiburzi v. Adience, Inc.
2012 Ohio 803
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Tiburzi, as administrator of Marlene Tiburzi’s estate, sues Adience, Inc. and many related defendants in asbestos-related claims.
- Plaintiff alleges decedent’s lung cancer and death were caused by occupational exposure to asbestos at various Ohio sites.
- The Asbestos Reform Act requires prima facie evidence of physical impairment to survive dismissal.
- Decedent diagnosed with cancer on Apr. 28, 2007, after a mass was identified on Feb. 23, 2007, and she died later that year.
- Plaintiff filed suit on Feb. 20, 2009; defendants moved to administratively dismiss for lack of prima facie evidence on Apr. 8, 2010.
- Tiburzi submitted Dr. Mehrotra’s report as prima facie evidence in opposition, but a deposition of Mehrotra was not completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking the physician’s report was proper sanctions for nonappearance | Tiburzi argues sanctions were improper; 2307.93 permits challenge to evidence via proper motion | Adience contends deposition failure justifies striking and dismissal | Striking the report was an abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded |
| Whether administrative dismissal for failure to file prima facie evidence was proper | Tiburzi contends dismissal premature or improper | Adience sought dismissal after significant delay and procedural steps | Administrative dismissal improper; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 2007) (procedural framework for proving minimum prima facie impairment evidence)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Bogle, 115 Ohio St.3d 455 (Ohio 2007) (discovery rules are procedural, not substantive)
- Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 125 Ohio St.3d 358 (Ohio 2010) (limits on prima facie evidence timing; summary judgment standard)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (Ohio 1996) (discretion in imposing discovery sanctions)