Lasley v. Nguyen
Decision Date | 03 August 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 21968.,21968. |
Citation | 876 N.E.2d 1274,172 Ohio App.3d 741,2007 Ohio 4086 |
Parties | LASLEY, Appellant, v. NGUYEN et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Dwight D. Brannon, Dayton, and Matthew C. Schults, for appellee Miami Valley Trial Lawyers' Association.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Kim D. Lasley appeals from a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which sustained the Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment of defendant-appellee Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") on September 18, 2006. Lasley also appeals from the decision of the trial court sustaining defendant-appellee Huong T. Nguyen's motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief during trial on November 20, 2006. The trial court issued a written decision sustaining Nguyen's motion for directed verdict on December 5, 2006. Lasley filed a timely notice of appeal with this court on December 27, 2006.
{¶ 2} At the time of the accident that forms the basis of this appeal, Lasley was employed by Choices In Community Living as a residential specialist who worked in-home with mentally challenged and disabled clients. Lasley's work duties at Choices included driving her clients to perform daily errands. On December 31, 2004, the day of the accident, Lasley was taking two of her mentally disabled clients to the bank in Englewood, Ohio. Lasley was driving a van owned by Choices. As Lasley was headed eastbound on Taywood Avenue at approximately 10:00 a.m., she observed a black Honda Accord pull out in front of her and strike her van on the front passenger side of the vehicle.
{¶ 3} Lasley testified that she immediately stopped the vehicle and appraised the situation. She testified that she checked on her passengers and found that neither had sustained any injuries in the accident, which she described to the police officers as a "slight bump." Additionally, Lasley told the police that no one in the vehicle, including herself, was injured, and that everyone in the van had been wearing their seat belts. After the police finished questioning her regarding the accident, Lasley testified that she left the scene in the van, took her clients to the bank, and then went back to the Choices facility and finished her shift. That same day, Lasley was required to file an accident report with her employer. In the report, Lasley indicated again that no one had been hurt during the collision. Further, the van did not require repairs after the accident.
{¶ 4} Nonetheless, at her deposition and at trial, Lasley testified that she began to feel pain in her neck and back within an hour of the accident. Lasley attributed this pain to the injuries she suffered in the accident caused by Nguyen.
{¶ 5} However, testimony was adduced at trial that established that Lasley had an ongoing history of neck and back problems preceding the instant accident by approximately 12 years. Beginning in 1992, Lasley was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein she claimed neck and back injuries in a lawsuit she filed. In 1997, Lasley suffered a fall in a workplace incident wherein she injured her neck and back again. Lasley testified that she never fully recovered from that accident and that the pain in her neck and back would return from time to time. In 2001, Lasley was involved in another automobile accident in which she again claimed neck and back injuries.
{¶ 6} Further testimony was adduced at trial that revealed that in April 2004, approximately seven months before the accident with Nguyen, Lasley presented at a local chiropractic clinic complaining of two years of chronic back pain, which she attributed to a fall in the year 1999. Trial exhibits clearly indicate that Lasley reported that her pain level at that time was a seven or eight on a scale of one through ten. Lasley returned to the same clinic approximately three months later, still complaining of chronic back pain.
{¶ 7} Additionally, Lasley filed an application with BWC in July 2004, in which she sought an increase in the percentage of permanent partial disability she was then receiving. The record reveals that as late as October 2004, Lasley was still visiting a chiropractor in conjunction with her workplace injury in 1997. In fact, the record clearly establishes that Lasley had visited the chiropractor approximately 45 times in 2004 through the month of October. On October 22, 2004, two months before the accident, Lasley filed an application with the BWC requesting a continuation of her chiropractic treatment, stating that:
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} Lasley's appellate brief, however, states unequivocally that "in the months prior to the December 31, 2004, collision, she had been pain free and was not having any problems with her neck or back."
{¶ 10} In Lasley's first assignment, she argues that the trial court erred when it sustained the defense's motion for directed verdict based upon her failure to present expert testimony at trial on the issue of proximate causation regarding the injuries to her neck and back. In her second and third assignments, Lasley attacks the constitutionality of R.C. 4123.931, the BWC's subrogation statute, as it pertains to her claim for worker's compensation benefits for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident with Nguyen. She argues that the trial court erred when it granted BWC's motion for judgment on the pleadings or motion for summary judgment on the constitutionality of R.C. 4123.931 prior to trial. It is from this judgment that Lasley now appeals.
{¶ 11} Lasley's first assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 12} "The trial court erred as a matter of law by granting a motion for directed verdict for the defendant by finding a preexisting medical condition existed and expert medical testimony was required."
{¶ 13} In her first assignment, Lasley contends that the trial court erred when it sustained Nguyen's motion for directed verdict at the close of Lasley's case-in-chief. Lasley argues that in directing a verdict against her, the trial court, erred by evaluating the evidence and determining as a matter of law that she suffered from a pre-existing condition with respect to injuries she sustained to her neck and back in a series of incidents beginning in 1992. Lasley further argues that she was competent to testify regarding her injuries and the treatment she subsequently received and that the automobile accident with Nguyen was the proximate cause of the injuries she claims to have suffered. Thus, she concludes that no expert testimony was required with respect to the element of proximate cause. We disagree.
{¶ 14} Civ.R. 50(A)(4) addresses a motion for directed verdict when granted on the evidence or lack thereof. The rule states:
{¶ 15} "When a motion for directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue."
{¶ 16} The "reasonable minds" test calls upon a court to determine only whether there exists any evidence of substantial probative value in support of the claims of the nonmoving party. Wagner v. Roche Laboratories (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 116, 119-120, 671 N.E.2d 252. In Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 66, 23 O.O.3d 115, 430 N.E.2d 935, the Supreme Court of Ohio discussed the following analysis a trial court is to adhere to when ruling on a motion for directed verdict:
{¶ 17} Id. at 68-69, 23 O.O.3d 115, 430 N.E.2d 935.
{¶ 18} An appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict de novo, as it presents the court with a question of law. Schafer v. R.M.S. Realty (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 257, 741 N.E.2d 155. De novo review means that this court uses the same standard that the trial court should have used, and we examine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kademian v. Marger
... ... Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commissioners (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153. Lasley v. Nguyen, 172 Ohio App.3d 741, 2007-Ohio-4086, 876 N.E.2d 1274, 1618 (2d Dist.). 20 N.E.3d 1198 { 23} The standard for granting a directed ... ...
-
Downard v. Rumpke of Ohio, Inc.
... ... the trial court should have used, and we examine the evidence to determine whether as a matter of law no genuine issues exist for trial.” Lasley v. Nguyen, 172 Ohio App.3d 741, 2007-Ohio-4086, 876 N.E.2d 1274, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d ... ...
-
Warner v. DMAX Ltd.
... ... Id. In a de novo review, the trial court's decision is not granted any deference by the reviewing court. Lasley v. Nguyen, 172 Ohio App.3d 741, 2007-Ohio-4086, 876 N.E.2d 1274, 18 (2d Dist.). { 37} In its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ... ...
-
Harrod v. USAA Ins. Co.
... ... "An appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict de novo, as it presents the court with a question of law." Lasley v. Nguyen , 172 Ohio App.3d 741, 2007-Ohio-4086, 876 N.E.2d 1274, 18 (2d Dist.), citing Schafer v. RMS Realty , 138 Ohio App.3d 244, 257, 741 ... ...