Clementi v. Wean United, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 November 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87-1671,87-1671 |
Citation | 530 N.E.2d 909,39 Ohio St.3d 342 |
Parties | CLEMENTI, Appellee, v. WEAN UNITED, INC., Appellant; Mayfield, Admr., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
R.C. 4123.84 requires a claimant to file a motion for an additional allowance within two years of the time the claimant knew or should have known of the additional condition.
Tablack, Wellman & Jeren and John A. Jeren, Jr., Youngstown, for appellee Gregory Clementi.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, F. Daniel Balmert, Jo Ann F. Wasil, Cleveland, and Russell P. Herrold, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Diane J. Karpinski, Columbus, for appellees James L. Mayfield, Adm'r, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and Indus. Com'n.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether the two-year notice requirement under R.C 4123.84(A)(1) bars an additional claim for a "flow-through" or residual psychiatric condition under the Industrial Commission's continuing jurisdiction to modify orders pursuant to R.C. 4123.52. We have defined a "flow-through" or "residual injury" as "one developing in a body part not originally alleged per R.C. 4123.84(A)(1)." Dent v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 187, 527 N.E.2d 821. For the following reasons, we hold that the two-year notice requirement under R.C. 4123.84(A)(1) does bar such an additional claim for a "flow-through" or residual psychiatric condition.
R.C. 4123.84 provides in pertinent part:
R.C. 4123.52 provides in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Wean United argues that the flow-through or residual condition of "generalized anxiety disorder" was barred because Clementi failed, for at least five years after the condition first manifested itself, to file an application for allowance. The trial court agreed and stated that since R.C. 4123.84 requires that a claim be filed within two years after the injury, when a new condition is discovered which flows from an original injury, a claim for the new condition must be made within two years from the discovery thereof. The court of appeals, however, citing dicta in Repan v. Connor (Nov. 18, 1985), Belmont App. No. 85-B-19, unreported, reversed. "R.C. 4123.84(A)(1) * * * applies only to initial date injuries and not to residual or flow through injuries." Repan v. Connor, supra.
The trial court correctly interpreted the relationship between R.C. 4123.84 and 4123.52. There are a number of courts of appeals decisions that have disposed of the issue presented by this appeal. Because they are persuasive, we will review them here. In Hall v. Diamond Internatl. Corp., supra, the claimant filed an application for workers' compensation benefits for an "anxiety and nervous condition" in 1979. The claimant argued that this condition was a residual or flow-through injury from a back injury for which he had already been compensated in 1975. The claimant further argued that because the "anxiety-nervous condition" was a new and changed condition flowing from the original injury with the passage of time, he was entitled to compensation for the new condition under R.C. 4123.52. The court of appeals disagreed, stating:
Id. 24 Ohio App.3d at 203-204, 24 OBR at 327, 493 N.E.2d at 1371. The court of appeals in Hall v. Diamond Internatl. Corp., therefore, held that the trial court properly granted the employer's motion for summary judgment.
The same court of appeals reached the same conclusion in McCain v. Connor (May 28, 1986), Hamilton App. No. C-850525, unreported, a case in which the appellant filed a claim in 1981 for a psychological condition allegedly resulting from a work-related injury sustained in 1978. Noting that the condition was first manifested in 1979 and the claim was filed more than two years later, the court of appeals, citing Hall v. Diamond Internatl. Corp., supra, held that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations found in R.C. 4123.84.
The Montgomery County Court of Appeals in Brock v. Mayfield, supra, also held that a claimant must file an application for allowance of an additional condition which is due to and a result of, or a residual of, a previously allowed condition within two years of the time that the claimant first knew or should have known that the additional condition was due to and a result of, or a residual of, a previously allowed condition. The court of appeals stated: In Brock, the claimant was injured in 1979 in the course of and arising out of her employment. A claim was allowed for "torn medial meniscus of left knee" and "possible herniated nucleus pulposis at L-4, L-5." In 1983, the claimant filed a motion for allowance of the additional condition of "depressive reaction." Noting that the claimant admitted that she failed to file a motion for allowance of the "depressive reaction" claim within two years of the time she knew, or should have known, that the "depressive reaction" was due to, a result of, and/or residual of her industrial injuries sustained in 1979, the court of appeals held that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. See, also, Snyder v. Mayfield, supra, and Horn v. Mayfield (Jan. 12, 1988), Montgomery App. No. CA 10468, unreported in which the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County again held that a claimant did not timely file a motion to have his industrial claim additionally recognized for a psychiatric condition when he failed to file the claim within two years of the time he knew or should have known of this additional condition. The Court of Appeals for Stark County reached a similar conclusion in Kirkbride v. Hoover Co. (June 9, 1986), Stark App. No. CA-6848, unreported.
Clementi cites this court's decision in Kittle v. Keller (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 177, 38 O.O.2d 414, 224 N.E.2d 751, in support of his contention that his claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. In Kittle, this court held that "[a]n injured employee, who, after filing a claim within time and being awarded compensation or benefits, files an application for modification of that award more than two years after the original injury occurred in order to secure compensation for a subsequently developing disability directly caused by an injury sustained in the original accident but not described in the original application, is not barred of his right to continue to participate in the State Insurance Fund by virtue of Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. Trimble
...of the residual or "flow-through" condition and its causal relation to his or her industrial injury. (Clementi v. Wean United, Inc. [1988], 39 Ohio St.3d 342, 530 N.E.2d 909, 2. A self-insured employer makes a conclusive determination to allow a claim for a residual or "flow-through" condit......
-
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control
...knew or should have known of the ulcer pursuant to R.C. 4123.84, we hold that the claim is not barred. See Clementi v. Wean United, Inc. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 342, 530 N.E.2d 909. For these reasons, Grant's assignments of error are well taken. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, an......
-
Cummings v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
...claims within two years of the time the worker knew or should have known of the additional condition. See Clementi v. Wean United, Inc. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 342, 530 N.E.2d 909; Dent v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 187, 527 N.E.2d 821. Appellee argues that a worker must ......
-
Alfred Cummings v. the B.F. Goodrich Co., 93-LW-0374
... ... compensable injury, ( Schell v. Globe Trucking , ... Inc ... (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 1), it is perfectly ... logical that an ... the additional condition. See, Clementi v. Wean United ... Inc ... (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 342, 530 N.E.2d 909; ... ...