Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp.Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp.
__________________
PFEIFER, J.
{¶ 1} The proposition of law presented by the appellants is as fоllows: “An asbestos claim subject to H.B. 292 may not be severed from non-asbestos claims arising from the same lawsuit and involving the same indivisible jury.”1 We conclude that the General Assembly did not intend the statutory scheme addressing asbestos claims to apply to non-asbestos claims and, therefore, that non-asbеstos claims can be severed from asbestos claims.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Appellees Jack E. Riedel, Danny R. Six, and Josephine Weldy (collectively, “Riedel“) separately brought suit against appellants Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Premier Underwriters, Inc., and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (collectively “Consolidated Rail“), alleging various
{¶ 3} Consоlidated Rail moved for an administrative dismissal, alleging that Riedel had failed to make the preliminary prima facie showing required by
{¶ 4} On appeal, Consolidated Rail argued that the trial court erred in (1) ruling that the administrаtive-dismissal provisions of
{¶ 5} The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, stating, “The administrative dismissal provision is limited to the asbestos-related claims that are specified in R.C. 2307.92.” Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 8th Dist. Nos. 91237, 91238, and 91239, 2009-Ohio-1242, ¶ 13. The court reasoned that
Analysis
{¶ 6} Because this case “requires the interpretation of statutory authority, which is a question of law, our review is de novo.” State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295, 2007-Ohio-4163, ¶ 8, citing Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 460, 466, 639 N.E.2d 425.
{¶ 7}
{¶ 8}
{¶ 10} A сlaim that has been administratively dismissed may be reinstated only when the plaintiff is able to make a prima-facie showing as to the asbestos claim.
{¶ 11} We conclude that the administrative-dismissal provision of
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately.
__________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring.
{¶ 12} I concur. However, I write separately to address the argument of appеllants and amicus curiae that severing non-asbestos claims would overburden the asbestos docket and undermine judicial economy. They contend that litigating non-asbestos claims on the already overloaded asbestos docket would thwart the purpose of H.B. 292, which was intended to expedite asbestos cases.
{¶ 13} The adjudication of the non-asbestos claims is a matter best decided at the local level. Once the non-asbеstos claims have been severed from the asbestos claims, the local court should determine whether the non-asbestos claims may be adjudiсated on the asbestos docket or should be transferred to the court‘s general docket. I believe that this is a matter of docket contrоl that is best left to court administration at the local level.
O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.
__________________
Doran & Murphy, L.L.P., Christopher M. Murphy, and Michael L. Torcellо; and Mary Brigid Sweeney Co., L.L.P., and Mary Brigid Sweeney, for appellees.
Burns, White & Hickton, L.L.C., David A. Damico, Ira L. Podheiser, and Megan L. Zerega, for appellаnts.
Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Colleen A. Mountcastle, and Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc.
______________________