2021 Ohio 34
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Terry Towles filed a workers' compensation claim for a right shoulder impingement and rotator cuff tear after an incident at MillerCoors on May 1, 2016; the claim was ultimately allowed by the BWC and appealed by MillerCoors to the trial court.
- A three-day jury trial was held; the jury found by a preponderance that Towles’s shoulder injuries were proximately caused by the May 1, 2016 workplace event and not by natural deterioration.
- Towles’s treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jonathan Paley, testified (by videotaped deposition) that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the injuries originated with the reported work incident.
- Towles’s wife and two sons testified about Towles’s activities and symptoms before and after the incident to rebut MillerCoors’s natural-deterioration theory.
- MillerCoors filed a Civ.R. 59(A) motion for a new trial arguing (1) the trial court improperly gave an "eggshell skull" instruction without supporting expert testimony, (2) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (3) family testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial, and (4) other trial errors; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment and denial of the new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Towles' Argument | MillerCoors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly gave an "eggshell skull" (eggshell causation) jury instruction | Instruction correctly states law and should be given when supported by the evidence | Instruction was improper because no medical testimony established a preexisting condition that made Towles more susceptible | Affirmed — instruction was a correct statement of law and supported by trial evidence (Dr. Paley) and jury interrogatories |
| Whether an expert had to say a preexisting condition made Towles more prone to this injury before giving eggshell instruction | No such additional expert showing required; instruction addresses employer taking employee as found | Instruction improper without expert testimony that preexisting condition increased susceptibility | Affirmed — Dr. Paley’s testimony sufficiently supported the instruction; no heightened showing required |
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., injuries developed gradually/repetitive trauma) | Towles proved proximate causation from the May 1 event by testimony and expert opinion | Verdict was against manifest weight because expert indicated repetitive trauma could explain injuries | Affirmed — competent, credible evidence supported jury’s finding of work-related injury and proximate cause |
| Whether testimony from Towles’s wife and sons was inadmissible, irrelevant, or unduly prejudicial | Family testimony was relevant to differences in Towles’s pre- and post-incident function and rebutted natural-deterioration theory | Family testimony had no probative value, was prejudicial and cumulative | Affirmed — testimony was relevant, not unfairly prejudicial or unduly cumulative |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 59(A) new-trial motion | Denial proper because no reversible error in instructions, evidence, or testimony | New trial required for the errors alleged (primarily eggshell instruction and weight of evidence) | Affirmed — motion denied; appellate court found no merit in asserted grounds for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Bennett v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 134 Ohio St.3d 329 (Ohio 2012) (elements claimant must prove in workers' compensation case)
- Aiken v. Industrial Commission, 143 Ohio St. 113 (Ohio 1944) (definition of proximate cause)
- Valentine v. PPG Industries, Inc., 158 Ohio App.3d 615 (4th Dist. 2004) (expert testimony ordinarily required to prove proximate causation of a medical condition)