Court Rulings

The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee Dayton Public Schools Board of Education. The record contains genuine issues of material fact as to (1) whether the appellants' employment with Dayton Public Schools was suspended as part of a true reduction in force in the transportation department and (2) whether the appellants were qualified to be recalled into newly created positions. Judgments reversed and remanded.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – PREEXISTING CONDITION – SUBSTANTIAL AGGRAVATION: The trial court did not err in its application of the substantial-aggravation standard by requiring evidence of the claimant's "pre-injury reference point." The trial court's determination that claimant's expert testimony was insufficient to establish a preexisting condition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Negligence duty of care sexual assault Title IX Section 1983 substantive due process equal protection independent contractor tort law failure to train and supervise precedent education special-needs exceptional children summary judgment and motion to dismiss

Negligence duty of care sexual assault Title IX Section 1983 substantive due process equal protection independent contractor tort law failure to train and supervise precedent education special-needs exceptional children summary judgment and motion to dismiss

The defendants, the employer, S Co., and its insurance carrier, A Co., appealed to this court from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Worker's Compensation Com- missioner finding that the plaintiff's repetitive workplace activities at S Co. substantially and permanently aggravated a preexisting condition in his knee and denying the defendants' motion for articulation. The plaintiff, who suffered from degenerative arthritis stemming from a work injury he suffered in 1972, and a subsequent surgery in 1973, prior to his employment with S Co., and who ultimately required a total replacement of his left knee, submitted into evidence medical records and correspondence from his treating physician, P. The defendants claimed that the board improperly affirmed the commissioner's award because, inter alia, P's expert opinions were not expressed with reason- able medical probability. Held: 1. The board properly affirmed the commissioner's award. a. The board properly affirmed the commissioner's finding that P's opin- ion that there was a causal relationship between the plaintiff's employ- ment and his need for surgery was expressed with a reasonable degree of medical probability; P opined in unequivocal language that the plain- tiff's 1972 injury actually had been aggravated by the plaintiff's work at S Co., pulling and pushing pallets of parts weighing 800 to 1400 pounds for shifts of 12 hours, and, although P's notes indicated that the plaintiff's overwhelming medical issue was arthritis and that his need for surgery dated back to his 1973 knee operation, these references did not render P's entire opinion speculative and were not inconsistent with an opinion that the plaintiff's workplace activities at S Co. constituted a substantial contributing factor to the plaintiff's need for surgery because they aggra- vated the plaintiff's preexisting condition. b. The board properly affirmed the commissioner's finding that P's records con