Choate v. Tranet, Inc., 2004 Ohio 3537 (OH 7/6/2004), Case No. CA2003-11-112.
| Decision Date | 06 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CA2003-11-112. |
| Citation | 2004 Ohio 3537 |
| Parties | Pamela Choate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tranet, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Pamela Choate, 5127 Lakeside Drive, Mason, Ohio 45040-1768, pro se.
Jim Petro, Ohio Attorney General, Steven P. Fixler, 1600 Carew Tower, 441 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for defendant-appellee, Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation.
Lopez, Kemmer, Severt & Pratt Co., L.P.A., Jonathan S. Zweizig and Jose M. Lopez, 18 East Water Street, Troy, Ohio 45373, for defendants-appellees, Tranet, Inc. and Tim Rudy.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Pamela Choate, appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas denying her right to participate in the workers' compensation fund for her claimed injuries. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶2} Appellant worked at Tranet, Inc. ("Tranet") as an office manager. The majority of appellant's duties consisted of answering phones, recruiting, bookkeeping, and organizing the company office and warehouse. Appellant testified that occasionally she had to lift heavy items.
{¶3} In April of 2000, appellant alleged that she began to experience pain in her lower back and leg. On August 29, 2001, appellant sent Tranet a letter announcing her resignation. In this letter, appellant made no reference to any physical injuries that forced her to resign.
{¶4} However, in November 2001, appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission of Ohio ("Industrial Commission") denied appellant's claim. Consequently, appellant filed an appeal from the Industrial Commission's order to the trial court pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.
{¶5} On September 4, 2003, appellant's claim went before a jury. Appellant, representing herself, argued that her injuries developed over time due to constant heavy lifting. Yet, appellant never had a single injury involving her back or leg reported in the Tranet OSHA log, which contains a list of all reported work-related injuries. Furthermore, appellant testified that she organized the OSHA log and it was her responsibility to keep the records for the OSHA log.
{¶6} At trial, while cross-examining appellant, appellees advanced several theories on the cause of appellant's back and leg pain. Appellees suggested that appellant's back and leg pain were the result of spondylosis and degenerative disc disease, or from her obesity. Appellant admitted that she suffers from spondylosis and degenerative disc disease. Appellant also testified that she was five feet tall and weighed 260 pounds while Tranet employed her.
{¶7} At the close of appellant's evidence, appellees moved for a directed verdict based on appellant's failure to call any medical expert to establish a causal relationship between her job and her injury. In response, appellant moved for a continuance.
{¶8} The trial court stated on the record that appellant had been warned about the necessity to use a medical expert at trial. Specifically, the trial court stated that "this is a matter that we discussed in chambers on past occasions." The trial court denied appellant's motion for a continuance. The trial court then granted appellees motion for directed verdict and entered judgment for appellees on September 5, 2003.
{¶9} On September 10, 2003, appellant filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 16, 2003, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. On October 30, 2003, appellant's motion for reconsideration and her request for findings of fact and conclusions of law were denied. Appellant appeals the decision of the trial court arguing twelve assignments of error. Assignments of error No. 1 and No. 2 will be addressed together as they are related:
{¶10} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶11} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff/appellant by granting the defendants/appellee's motion for directed verdict."
{¶12} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶13} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff-appellant when it granted defendant/appellee's directed verdict for not offering any medical testimony."
{¶14} Appellant argues that "a directed verdict should not be granted if reasonable minds could come to different conclusions." Appellant also argues that "Ohio courts have established that it is not absolutely necessary in all cases of physical injury to produce expert testimony to prove the casual connection of the injury, because when it is a matter of common knowledge that a certain act will produce injury or pain, expert testimony is not required."
{¶15} According to Civ.R. 50(A)(4), a motion for directed verdict is granted if, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, "reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party."
{¶16} Appellant argues that "after three years of lifting shipments of at times over ninety pounds that it took its toll on her lower back and disabled her." Appellant cannot point to a single incident that caused her injury, nevertheless, she maintains that her injury is "within common knowledge that a woman constantly lifting heavy shipments would injure her back."
{¶17} However, it has been held that a lower back injury is not within the scope of common knowledge. Hickman v. Ford Motor (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 327, 331. Because the cause of lower back pain is not within the scope of common knowledge, "medical testimony is essential." Stacey v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. (1951), 156 Ohio St. 205, syllabus.
{¶18} Appellant failed to offer expert medical testimony of a causal relationship between the duties of her job and her injury. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that in order to establish the probability of a proximate casual relationship between an accident and the claimed resulting physical condition, medical testimony is essential. Id. Consequently, without expert medical evidence of a proximate causal relationship between appellant's injury and her job, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to appellant. The first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶19} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶20} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff/appellant when it sustained the objection by the defendants/appellees not to admit plaintiff/apellant's treating physician's curriculum vitae."
{¶21} Appellant argues that "medical records from this treating physician were admitted into evidence and the curriculum vitae should also be admitted."
{¶22} A trial court "has broad discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence." Kirschbaum v. Dillon (1990), 58 Ohio St.3d 58, 66. Absent an abuse of discretion that materially prejudices a party, the trial court's decision will stand. Id. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment: it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court. Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 46, 47.
{¶23} A curriculum vitae or resume of an expert witness lists that individual's qualifications and experiences. Appellant's treating physician did not testify, therefore, his qualifications and experiences are immaterial. Consequently, the exclusion of appellant's treating physician's curriculum vitae was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶25} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff/appellant when it redacted any and all references to plaintiff/appellant's work-related injury."
{¶26} Appellant argues that "when a physician's opinion is based upon a professional conclusion arrived at after a proper examination, and that opinion is relevant to the issue being tried, then the opinion is admissible."
{¶27} Appellant's treating physician did not testify, therefore, he could not be cross-examined on his opinions and professional conclusion. Appellees objected to appellant's introduction of exhibits from her treating physician when the exhibits referred to appellant's injury as work related. The trial court sustained the objections.
{¶28} In order to establish the probability of a proximate causal relationship between an accident and the claimed resulting physical condition, medical testimony is essential. Stacey, 156 Ohio St. at syllabus. Without expert medical testimony to establish the proximate causal link between appellant's job and her physical condition, the trial court correctly sustained appellees' objections to references in appellant's exhibits describing her medical condition as work related. Consequently, the fourth assignment of error is overruled.
{¶29} Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶30} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff/appellant when it considered the defendants/appellees' oral motion that the plaintiff/appellant's condition at issue is spondylosis and degenerative disc disease."
{¶31} Appellant argues that "statements made by counsel were incorrect and improper and was a continuation of prejudice and abuse directed at [her]." Appellant also argues that appellees' statements indicating the cause of her medical condition as spondylosis and degenerative disk disease is "not the facts of this case or the evidence."
{¶32} However, appellant did not object to any of appellees' statements regarding her spondylosis and degenerative disk disease. Failure to object to statements made at trial waives that issue on appeal. Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223.
{¶33} Nevertheless, appellees maintain that their statements are correct and supported by the evidence. Surprisingly, appellant confirms appellees' assertion by admitting in...
To continue reading
Request your trial