Skip to main content

Howell v. Consol. Rail Corp.

Ohio Ct. App.July 20, 2017No. 104554Cited 4 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Mays, Stewart, Jones
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateBreach of Contract

Outcome

The trial court's denial of defendants' motion for administrative dismissal was affirmed. The court found that plaintiff Howell met the prima facie requirements of Ohio's Asbestos Reform Act by presenting medical evidence that his asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor to his lung cancer, considering the synergistic effect with his smoking history.

Excerpt

R.C. 2307.91 et seq., Ohio Asbestos Reform Act, Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. Sec. 51, et. seq., railroad worker, competent medical authority, substantial occupational exposure to asbestos. Viewed in a light most favorable to claimant pursuant to R.C. 2307.92, the trial court properly denied railroad employers' motion for administrative dismissal of employee's claim under the Ohio Asbestos Reform Act and FELA. The Ohio Asbestos Reform Act's prima facie requirements are procedural, not substantive, in nature. Appellee, a smoker suffering from cancer who claims railroad asbestos exposure during employment is a substantial cause of his impairment, must provide substantiation from a competent medical authority. Asbestos exposure is not required to be the sole or predominant cause, but a "predominate" cause, i.e., a substantial factor. A trial court is not precluded from considering supplemental medical evidence offered to support the prima facie case as the rules of evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Railroad Worker Wins Right to Pursue Asbestos Cancer Claim** This case involved a railroad worker named Howell who developed lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos during his job with Consolidated Rail Corporation. The railroad company tried to get his lawsuit thrown out before trial, arguing that Howell couldn't prove his workplace asbestos exposure caused his cancer, especially since he was also a smoker. The Ohio appeals court ruled in Howell's favor, allowing his case to move forward. The court found that Howell had provided sufficient medical evidence showing his workplace asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor to his lung cancer. Importantly, the court recognized that asbestos exposure can work together with smoking to cause cancer - they don't cancel each other out. This decision matters for workers because it protects their right to seek compensation for work-related illnesses, even when they have other risk factors like smoking. The ruling makes it clear that employers can't easily dismiss asbestos exposure claims by pointing to workers' personal habits. Workers who develop cancer or other diseases from workplace asbestos exposure can still pursue legal claims, and courts will consider how workplace exposure contributed to their illness alongside other factors.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

DOL
6th CircuitMay 2014
Plaintiff Win
Adams
WVADec 2003
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.