Case ID: ohio-st-3d_79/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mutters, Appellant, v. White Castle System, Inc., Appellee, et al.
    [Cite as Mutters v. White Castle Sys., Inc. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 420.]
    (No. 97-774
    Submitted June 25, 1997
    Decided September 24, 1997.)
    
      
      Becker, Reed, Tilton & Hastings and Dennis A. Becker, for appellant.
    
      Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Duane A. Boggs, for appellee.
   The discretionary appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court to apply Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs separately.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring. I do not interpret this “remand” as an order to grant the claimant her award. Rather, I interpret it as an order to the court to apply the new standards in Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207, to this fact pattern to determine whether claimant knew or should have known of her condition. However, I would also caution the trial court to factor in her doctor’s apparent refusal to refer her for psychiatric care after she specifically requested it and the effect that refusal had upon her delay in diagnosis. It is possible that the doctor’s refusal to refer claimant negated any threshold of the “knew or should have known” scienter on her part, given the trust one puts in one’s own physician.