 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simmons v. Imperial Service Systems8/20/1998
dence what should have been offered as evidence in chief. Cook v. Williams (1952), 92 Ohio App. 277.
A party has an unconditional right to present rebuttal evidence on matters which are first addressed in the opponent's case-in-chief and should not be brought in the rebutting party's case-in-chief. Phung v. Waste Management, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 408, 410 citing Katz v. Enzer (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 118, 123.
The claimant in a workers' compensation action has the burden to show that the injury was work-related. See Waller v. Mayfield (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 118. Evidence concerning whether the injury was work-related should have been presented in appellant's case in chief. See Phung, Cities Service, Mehurin, supra. The issue of whether the injury occurred at work first arose when appellant testified in her case-in-chief.
Appellant claims she was surprised by the testimony of appellee's witness, Dr. Shamir, that appellant was not injured at work. Dr. Shamir did not testify that no injury occurred at work, only that he could not ascertain whether the October 27 injury occurred at work. This testimony was consistent with the doctor's deposition. Additionally, the defendant's trial brief noted that the emergency room report of October 27 did not state that the injury occurred at work. The defendant's trial brief argued that no injury occurred at work. Appellant can not claim she was surprised by appellee's argument that the injury did not occur at work.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request to present a rebuttal witness.
Accordingly, appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SPELLACY, J., AND CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR.
ANN DYKE PRESIDING JUDGE
|