Court Rulings

In considering claim for eligibility for workers' compensation on a summary judgment motion, the trial court erred in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether claimant's psychological condition in 2015 was caused by a workplace injury several years earlier. Claimant's expert stated by affidavit that, in his opinion, claimant's depression was related to the workplace injury five years earlier. The trial court also erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that reasonable minds could not find a causal connection to the psychological condition five years after the physical injury. The trial court erred in concluding that claimant's expert's opinion could not be considered, because it was "self serving" and "contradicted" claimant's admissions about her medical history. Rules related to contradictory evidence offered by a party in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment apply to contradictory statements by the same person no such evidence was offered here. Moreover, the expert's opinion and the claimant's admissions were not contradictory, and a non-party's statements are not "self serving" when offered to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Judgment reversed and remanded.

Employment termination

Relator did not establish that she was a public employee as opposed to an independent contractor.

A school board's special meeting notice failed to comply with R.C. 121.22(F), because the board failed to properly state the purpose of the open session of the meeting. The board's resolution not to renew an employee's contract, therefore, was invalid, and the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in the board's favor. Although the school board also failed to comply with certain requirements of R.C. 3313.16 when it sent out the notice for the special meeting, the trial court did not err in finding a lack of prejudice because the employee had actual notice of the meeting. In addition, the board's motion to go into executive session facially complied with R.C. 121.22(G)(1). Whether the Board improperly disguised its intentions in calling the meeting and in moving into executive session do not need to be considered, due to the invalidity of the resolution adopted at the special meeting. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Industrial commission did not abuse its discretion in ruling that relator voluntarily abandoned the workforce following the denial of her first PTD application in 2004. Because relator never previously contended that the commission failed to consider her allowed psychological condition in denying her three prior PTD applications, there is no merit to relator's claim that the commission failed to consider her allowed psychological condition in making the determination that she abandoned the workforce. Writ denied.

Trial court's determination regarding purported oral lease purchase agreement of mobile home is affirmed, particularly where there was testimony that appellants misrepresented the year of the mobile home.

The plaintiff appealed from a Superior Court judgment granting summary judgment in the defendants' favor. The plaintiff's daughter suffered severe injuries while in the care of a medical facility, where she was treated by two nurses, the defendants. Prior to suing the defendants, however, the plaintiff settled her claims against the medical facility, executing a Joint Tortfeasor Release that released the medical facility from liability. At issue in this case was whether G.L. 1956 § 10-6-2—which mandates that for purposes of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, "a master and servant or principal and agent shall be considered a single tortfeasor"—served as a bar to the plaintiff's claims against the defendants because the plaintiff had already released the defendants' employer, the medical facility. The Supreme Court concluded that it did, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court. Pursuant to § 10-6-2's clear and unambiguous language, a master and servant are considered a single tortfeasor thus the release of either results in the release of both.

Taxation-Real-property valuation-Jurisdiction-R.C. 5715.19(A)(1)-Limited-liability company failed to establish that its complaint was signed by an officer, salaried employee, partner, or member and therefore failed to meet its burden to establish that the board of revision had jurisdiction over its complaint.

Appellate order reversing trial court final order rendered trial court's earlier determination that procedural issues were moot justiciable Trial court did not err in ruling on procedural issues.

Summary judgment for insurer proper where business-pursuit exclusion precluded coverage for losses resulting from insured's failure to control fire during barn demolition for neighbor. Exclusion applied even if work not performed on behalf of insured's employer and despite fact that he waived fee and earned no profit. Negligent performance of project did not render activity "non-business." Reply brief in support of co-defendants' motion for summary judgment was not motion requiring ruling by court.

Workers' compensation claim R.C. 4123.512(F) attorney fees abuse of discretion settlement credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to appellant pursuant to R.C. 4123.512(F). Appellant's right to continue participating in the workers' compensation fund was ultimately established upon the final determination of the trial court's proceedings. The trial court's award of attorney fees in the amount of $3,800 is supported by competent evidence in the record.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 lack of informed consent negligence. The court found that Dr. Emlich was not an employee of OSUMC, and that pursuant to R.C. 2317.54, plaintiff could not prevail on a claim of lack of informed consent against OSUMC as a matter of law. Further, plaintiff provided no evidence from which to infer that OSUMC breached any duty to plaintiff with respect to telephonic interpreter services provided to plaintiff. Defendant OSUMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of employee in administrative appeal from the denial of workers' compensation. Employee bore the burden of proof on the issue of an idiopathic cause of her fall, and there remained a genuine issue of material fact on that issue. Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

OTHER CIVIL RULES - discovery protective order deposition testimony trade secret competing interests R.C. 1333.61 Civ.R. 26(C).