Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
An Ohio appellate court affirmed trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to an employer in a workers’ compensation matter in spite of what the worker contended was a conflict in the medical evidence. The worker was diagnosed with respiratory problems and claimed the condition was associated with various products that he mixed for his employer. The worker’s pulmonologist diagnosed the worker as having mucus in the lungs and opined that the condition was more likely than not the result of workplace exposure rather than viral or fungal infections common to the general public. The employer’s expert concluded that the workplace was not causally connected to the worker’s condition. The appellate court noted that the worker’s expert had offered an opinion, but had failed to state the bases for his opinions and had cited no medical authority in support of the notion that substances mixed by the worker caused his pulmonary issues.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Hill v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc., 2016-Ohio–2868 (May 6, 2016)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 128.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law