1997 OHIO 370 - Martin v. Pfeiffer

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

79 Ohio St.3d 310

.]




       MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. PFEIFFER, ADMR., BUREAU OF WORKERS’
  COMPENSATION, ET AL.; DELPHI CHASSIS DIVISION, F.K.A. DELCO MORAIN
              DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Martin v. Pfeiffer,

1997-Ohio-370

.]
Workers’ compensation—Application and requirements of R.C. 4123.84 with
          regard to “flow-through” or residual medical conditions.
          (No. 96-2396—Submitted June 25, 1997—Decided July 30, 1997.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 15778.
                                 ___________________
          Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy,
for appellant.
          Crew, Buchanan & Lowe, Joseph P. Buchanan and James G. Neary, for
appellee.
                                 ___________________
          {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is
remanded to that court to apply Lewis v. Trimble (1997),

79 Ohio St.3d 231

680 N.E.2d 1207

.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
          LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
                                 ___________________
          LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
          {¶ 2} I respectfully dissent from the reversal based on Lewis v. Trimble
(1997),

79 Ohio St.3d 231

680 N.E.2d 1207

. Factually, this case is quite different
and the evidence is quite clear that the plaintiff “knew or should have known” of
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




her depression claim back in 1990. Therefore, the test laid out in Lewis has been
met and plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations from presenting her claim.
                               __________________




                                         2