{¶ 2} On August 19, 2000, Cross filed suit against AOC, a manufacturer of asbestos containing protective clothing, alleging asbestos-related lung injuries.1 Cross, who was exposed to various asbestos containing products during his 30-year career as a laborer, developed lung cancer and other lung related conditions. Cross was also a smoker for 46 years. Medical doctors attributed Cross's lung conditions to occupational asbestos exposure and tobaсco use.
{¶ 3} On September 2, 2004, Amended Substitute House Bill 292 became effective, and its key provisions were codified in R.C.
{¶ 4} If a plaintiff fails to make this prima facie showing, the court must administratively dismiss the claim. "The court shall maintain its jurisdiction over any case that is administratively dismissed under this division. Any plaintiff whose case has been administratively dismissed under this division may move to reinstate the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff makes a prima-faciе showing that meets the minimum requirements" discussed above. R.C.
{¶ 5} However, the legislature also included a savings clause in R.C.
{¶ 6} "(a) For any cause of action that arises before the effective date of this section, the provisions set forth in divisions (B), (C), and (D) of section
{¶ 7} "(i) A substantive right of a party to the case has been impaired.
{¶ 8} "(ii) That impairment is otherwise in violation of Section
{¶ 9} See Olson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., Cuyahoga App. No. 90790,
{¶ 10} On August 10, 2007, AOC filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss Cross's claim, alleging that he had not established the prima facie medical requirements. Specifically, AOC argued that no competent mеdical authority, as defined by R.C. 2907.91(Z), had opined that Cross's exposure to asbestos substantially contributed to his lung problems. Cross opposed this motion to dismiss, arguing that retroactive application of H.B. 292 is unconstitutional. On September 7, 2007, the trial court denied AOC's motion, ruling as follows:
{¶ 11} "Having heard the arguments, the Court finds that the application of R.C.
{¶ 13} Cross's motion to dismiss the appeal was filed in this court on September 19, 2007. On October 11, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court decidedIn re Special Docket No. 73958,
{¶ 14} In In re Special Docket No. 73958, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court held that "a finding on the constitutionality of retroactively applying the prima facie filing requirements of R.C.
{¶ 15} "In the case before us, the trial court's order denies the appellants' motion to apply the prima facie filing requirements in R.C.
{¶ 16} Id. at 431. See, also, Sinnott, supra,
{¶ 17} In re Special Docket No. 73958 is controlling, and accordingly, Cross's motion to dismiss this appeal is denied (see motion No. 401174).
{¶ 19} "The trial court erred when it entered an order making an R.C.
{¶ 20} At the time the court denied AOC's motion to dismiss, the Ohio Supreme Court had not yet handеd down its decision in Ackison v. AnchorPacking Co.,
{¶ 21} In the instant case, however, Cross does not dispute that the evidence he put forth does not meet the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 22} Although conclusory findings by a trial court do not necessarily constitute error, for an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review, sufficiently detailed reasoning should be specified in the trial court's order. See Mannion v. Sandel (2001),
{¶ 23} In Kent, supra, the United States Supreme Court held, among other things, that written reasons were required when a juvenile court waived jurisdiction, thus subjecting a juvenile defendant to trial as an adult. Id. The Kent Court, however, limited the responsibilities of the trial court: "We do not read the statute as requiring that this statement must be formal or that it should necessarily include conventional findings of fact. But the statement should be sufficient to dеmonstrate that the statutory requirement of `full investigation' has been met; and that the question has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review." Id. at 561.
{¶ 24} We are aware that the instant case involves the individual applicability of the savings clause section of an otherwise constitutionally retroactive statute, and not a new trial, an administrative hearing, or a juvenile jurisdiction waiver. However, R.C.
{¶ 25} Furthermore, R.C.
{¶ 26} In light of the foregoing, we find merit to AOC's assignment of error, to the extent that the court's September 7, 2007 order is insufficient for meaningful rеview. Sua sponte, this court remands this cause to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a journal entry explaining its ruling on AOC's motion to administratively dismiss Cross's claim, including a determination under R.C.
{¶ 27} The parties are granted leave to file with the clerk of the trial court the clarifying entry made upon remand as a supplemental record. The parties shall prepare the supplemental record in compliance with Loc. App. R. 11(B). This case, including the supрlemental record and revised pagination of record, is to be returned to the clerk of this court within 21 days of the date of this entry. Upon the transmittal of the requisite clarifying entry in the supplemental record, this court will review the appeal on the merits.
MELODY J. STEWART. P.J., CONCURS MARY JANE BOYLE, J., CONCURS.