 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Faierman v. Conrad11/29/2004
{ } Defendants-appellants, James Conrad, Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"), and Q Machine, Inc., appeal the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting the summary judgment motion of plaintiff-appellee, Brian Faierman. We affirm the common pleas court's decision.
{ } On March 29, 2001, appellee filed an application with the BWC for workers' compensation. Appellee alleged that he sustained a back injury on December 17, 2000, while in the course of his employment at Q Machine. According to appellee, he experienced severe lower back pain when he arrived for work on December 18, 2000. Appellee believed that his injury was the result of strenuous work performed on a manual milling machine the previous day. Appellee did not include medical records with his initial application.
{ } The BWC subsequently sent appellee a questionnaire about his injury. The questionnaire asked appellee, "Was the injured worker performing regular job duties at the time of the injury? If no, please explain." Appellee responded as follows: "No -- on 12-18-2000 I arrived at work at 7am in considerable lower back pain." The questionnaire also asked appellee, "Was the accident on the employer's premises? If no, please give the address of the accident location." Appellee responded as follows: "The day before I did a lot of physical work on my mach . That possibly led to my injury."
{ } A BWC claims service specialist had multiple phone conversations with appellee. According to the specialist's notes, appellee indicated that he did not experience any pain on December 17, 2000 and could not remember a specific injury on that date, but that he experienced severe pain when he arrived for work on December 18, 2000. The specialist also talked to appellee's supervisor, who, according to the specialist's notes, stated his belief that appellee did not injure himself at work.
{ } On April 5, 2001, the BWC denied appellee's claim for workers' compensation. In its decision denying the claim, the BWC stated the following: "The evidence does not support a finding that the employee sustained a physical injury or has contracted an occupational disease. Per conversation with injured worker, no physical injury occurred." Appellee did not appeal that decision.
{ } On February 4, 2002, appellee filed a second application for workers' compensation with the BWC based on the same injury. Appellee attached medical records in support of his claim. Appellee stated in his application that the BWC was obligated to process his claim pursuant to Greene v. Conrad (Aug. 21, 1997), Franklin App. No. 96-APE12-1780, 1997 WL 476703, and Industrial Commission Resolution R98-1-02.
{ } On May 8, 2002, the BWC denied appellee's second application for workers' compensation, finding that Greene and Industrial Commission Resolution R98-1-02 did not apply. Appellee appealed the BWC's decision to the Industrial Commission, which affirmed the decision.
{ } Appellee subsequently filed a complaint in the common pleas court, alleging that the BWC erroneously refused to process appellee's second application. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. The BWC and Q Machine also moved for summary judgment. In a decision issued October 3, 2003, the common pleas court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment, and denied the summary judgment motion of the BWC and Q Machine. The court found that, pursuant to Greene, appellee's second application was not barred by res judicata. Therefore, the court ordered the BWC to process appellee's claim and determine whether he is eligible for workers' compensation.
{ } The BWC and Q Machine now appeal, ass
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|