Dent v. AT & T Technologies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-1596,87-1596
• Citation: 38 Ohio St.3d 187,527 N.E.2d 821
• Parties: DENT, Appellee, v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 187

38 Ohio St.3d 187

527 N.E.2d 821

DENT, Appellee, v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant.

No. 87-1596.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 7, 1988.

Decided Aug. 17, 1988.

Syllabus by the Court

An injured employee is required to give written notice of the specific part or parts of the body claimed to have been injured within two years after the injury, but is not required to include in such notice the specific nature of the physical condition or impairment resulting from such injury. (R.C. 4123.84 and 4123.52, construed.)

On November 27, 1972, appellee, Joan Butler Dent, was injured while employed by appellant, AT & T Technologies, Inc., f.k.a. Western Electric Co., Inc., a self-insured employer under the Ohio workers' compensation system. Appellee's workers' compensation claim was recognized for contusion and abrasion of the left knee, depressive neurosis, acute back strain, and contusions of the right hand and right elbow. In 1974 and 1975, appellee underwent knee surgery, which was paid for by the self-insured employer. On March 7, 1978, appellee was examined by Dr. David K. Halley, an orthopedic surgeon, at the request of an attorney then representing her. In a portion of his report to counsel, Dr. Halley stated:

"With regards to her left knee, there is more objective evidence of the problem going on here. There is evidence of chondromalacia of the patella and some early arthritic changes beneath the knee cap which are confirmed by clinical examination. It is my impression that she has continuing disability with her knee primarily at the patellar femoral joint. I would estimate that she has a permanent partial disability with her knee of approximately 25%."

In September 1978, Dr. Halley's report was filed with the Industrial Commission and apparently with the self-insured employer as part of an "Application for Increase in Percentage of Permanent Partial Disability." On January 21, 1981, the Industrial Commission awarded appellee a ten-percent increase in her permanent partial disability. The decision of the commission increasing her disability did not specifically recognize, reject, or comment upon the additional conditions of chondromalacia and arthritis.

On June 30, 1983, appellee filed a motion with the Industrial Commission requesting formal recognition of "chondromalacia of the patella and arthritic changes." After a series of administrative hearings, the commission recognized appellee's chondromalacia and arthritic changes as additional conditions.

Pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, appellant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, arguing that the additional conditions were time-barred by R.C. 4123.84. The trial court held that the Industrial Commission had proper authority to recognize the additional conditions. The court of appeals affirmed this decision.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

John R. Workman, Columbus, for appellee.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Charles J. Kurtz III and Darrell R. Shepard, Columbus, for appellant.

WRIGHT, Justice.

The sole issue before this court is whether appellee's request for recognition of additional conditions (chondromalacia of the patella and arthritic changes of the left knee) is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of R.C. 4123.84.

Appellant argues that the additional conditions were barred by the statute because no formal application for allowance was made until June 30, 1983. The trial court, relying on Mewhorter v. Ex-Cell-O Corp. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 13, 23 OBR 11, 490 N.E.2d 610, found that notice was given within the two-year period by way of the filing of a fee bill. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but on a different basis, i.e., the two-year statute of limitations was met when appellee gave notice of her initial compensation claim in 1972. We agree with the analysis of the court of appeals.

R.C. 4123.84 provides in pertinent part:

"(A) In all cases of injury or death, claims for compensation or benefits for the specific part or parts of the body injured shall be forever barred unless, within two years after the injury or death:

"(1) Written notice of the specific part or parts of the body claimed to have been injured has been made to the industrial commission or the bureau of workers' compensation;

" * * *

"(3) In the event the employer has elected to pay compensation or benefits directly, one of the following has occurred:

"(a) Written notice of the specific part or parts of the body claimed to have been injured has been given to the commission or bureau, or the employer has furnished treatment by a licensed physician in the employ of an employer; providing, however, that the furnishing of such treatment shall not constitute a recognition of a claim as compensable, but shall do no more than satisfy the requirements of this section;

" * * *

"(B) * * *

" * * *

"The commission has continuing jurisdiction as set forth in section 4123.52 of the Revised Code over a claim which meets the requirement of this section, including jurisdiction to award compensation or benefits for loss or impairment of bodily functions developing in a part or parts of the body not specified pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section, if the commission finds that the loss or impairment of bodily functions was due to and a result of or a residual of the injury to one of the parts of the body set forth in the written notice filed pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section."

R.C. 4123.52 provides for the continuing jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission over workers' compensation claims and permits modification under certain circumstances. At all relevant times herein, the statute provided in pertinent part:

"The jurisdiction of the industrial commission over each case shall be continuing, and the commission may make such modification or change with respect to former findings or orders with respect thereto, as, in its opinion is justified. No such modification or change nor any finding or award in respect of any claim shall be made with respect to disability, compensation, dependency, or benefits, after six years from the date of injury in the absence of the payment of compensation for total disability under section 4123.56 of the Revised Code, or wages in lieu of compensation in a manner so as to satisfy the requirements of section 4123.84 of the Revised Code, except in cases where compensation has been paid under section 4123.56, 4123.57, or 4123.58 of the Revised Code, then ten years from the date of the last payment of compensation or from the date of death, nor unless written notice of claim for the specific part or parts...