 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Logarusic v. King Musical Instruments3/18/1991
JOSEPH E. MAHONEY, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, Cathy Logarusic, appeals the judgment of the trial court denying her workers' compensation benefits for her low back injury .
Appellant's claim for benefits was denied by the defendants-appellees, Industrial Commission of Ohio and the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. Pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, appellant filed an appeal to the Lake County Court of Common Pleas where the matter was tried de novo to a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court gave the following as part of its instructions to the jury:
"And in this case Cathy Logarusic has filed an action against the defendant, King Musical Instrument Inc., and has claimed that she sustained a compensable Worker's Compensation claim. The claim has been denied and therefore, she now has a right to present the claim to a jury and to request you to consider that claim.
"Now, you must disregard the fact that the claim has been disallowed, and you must proceed only on the evidence that is presented in this case.
"* * *"
The trial court further proceeded to give twenty-two pages of instructions.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict for appellees, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. Appellant now brings this timely appeal and assigns the following as error:
"By instructing the jury that appellant's workers' compensation claim had been denied at the administrative level the trial court erred to appellant's prejudice."
Appellant argues that the trial court's instruction informing the jury that her workers' compensation claim was denied at the administrative level denied her a trial de novo as guaranteed under R.C. 4123.519. Appellant concedes that a curative instruction was given but argues that this curative instruction did not remove the prejudicial effect of the improper instructions.
Appellant relies on Jones v. Keller (1966), 9 Ohio App.2d 210, 38 O.O.2d 217, 223 N.E.2d 657, wherein the court held that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to inform the jury of previous denials of workers' compensation benefits of the specific claim then in issue because an appeal pursuant to R.C. 4123.519 contemplates a new trial de novo. The court explained:
"The evil sought to be prevented by the application of this rule to civil actions generally is manifest, and there appears to be no valid reason to remove its application from Workmen's Compensation cases. On the contrary, the issue in such cases should be resolved objectively upon the evidence presented in the trial court through the exercise of independent judgment and without the overhanging influence of any previous decision. The parties enter the trial court upon equal footing, and Section 4123.519, Revised Code, does not contemplate that either party should be relegated to the laboriously fatiguing task of trying to overcome two adverse rulings upon the same claim." Id. at 212, 38 O.O.2d at 219, 223 N.E.2d at 659.
No curative instruction was given in the Jones case.
Appellees rely on Valentino v. Keller (1969), 17 Ohio St.2d 21, 46 O.O.2d 194, 244 N.E.2d 750, in support of their argument that the curative instruction given by the trial court removed any prejudicial error committed in the reference to the administrative denial of benefits.
In Valentino, the court addressed the propriety of a jury charge regarding prior adverse rulings to the claimant. The court stated:
"In our opinion, it was not error for the trial court in its charge to refer to those adverse administrative rulings, although we belie
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|