The Ohio Fifth Appellate District Court has overturned a lower court’s decision in a workers’ compensation case, sending the matter back for further legal proceedings. The case involves Todd Lang, who was seeking workers’ compensation benefits after suffering a head injury at his workplace, THK Manufacturing of America.
The Incident and Initial Claims
{¶2} The incident occurred at THK’s production facility in Hebron, Ohio. Lang, an employee, collapsed while talking to a coworker. He fell and hit his head, resulting in significant injuries that left him largely incapacitated.
{¶3} Lang initially filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC). However, the BWC denied his claim, stating that his injuries did not arise out of his employment with THK. Lang appealed the decision multiple times, but each appeal was denied. He then sought judicial review by filing an administrative appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, naming THK and the BWC as defendants.
The Court’s Decision and the Issue of Expert Testimony
{¶5} The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of THK, effectively denying Lang’s claim for workers’ compensation. The court concluded that Lang had not provided enough evidence to prove his injury was connected to his employment.
{¶6} The appellate court reviewed the case and found that the trial court made an error. The appellate court’s role was to determine if the trial court correctly granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no disputes about the important facts of the case and the law favors the winning side.
Conflicting Expert Opinions
{¶4} The heart of the dispute at the trial court level centered on the expert opinions. THK provided an affidavit from Dr. Scott Singer, who stated that Lang’s fall and injuries were unrelated to his work. Lang, in response, submitted an affidavit from Dr. Donato Borrillo. Dr. Borrillo expressed the view that Lang likely had developed a condition known as functional neurological disorder. He believed this disorder and Lang’s work activity precipitated a seizure, which caused the fall and skull fracture.
{¶9} The appellate court emphasized that at the summary judgment stage, the court should not pick which expert opinion it believes is correct. If the opposing party’s expert provides a reliable and reasonable opinion, summary judgment is inappropriate.
{¶12} Lang’s expert, Dr. Borrillo, explained that Lang likely suffered a seizure due to his work environment and a pre-existing medical condition. The expert stated that Lang’s work activity was directly related to the injury.
{¶13} THK’s expert, on the other hand, found no evidence linking Lang’s fall to his work activities or the work environment.
{¶14} The appellate court found that these conflicting expert opinions created a genuine issue of material fact. Both experts based their conclusions on Lang’s medical records and the circumstances of his fall. The court determined that Lang’s expert offered a possible causal connection between Lang’s employment and his injury, which was enough to prevent summary judgment.
The Standard for Summary Judgment
{¶7} For Lang to receive workers’ compensation, his injury must have occurred “in the course of, and arising out of, the injured employee’s employment.” The trial court agreed that the injury occurred during the course of employment. The focus of the appeal was on whether the injury arose out of the employment.
{¶8} The appellate court noted that at the summary judgment stage, Lang wasn’t required to prove his case completely. He only needed to present enough facts to create a genuine issue for trial.
{¶15} The appellate court concluded that Lang met this burden. He presented enough evidence, through his expert’s opinion, to suggest a possible link between his work and his injury.
The Outcome
{¶16} The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, meaning the case will go back to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings, likely including a trial where a judge or jury will hear the evidence and decide whether Lang is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.