Case Title: Mutters v. White Castle Sys., Inc.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-140

Docket Number: 19970774

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
MUTTERS, APPELLANT, V. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as Mutters v. White Castle Sys., Inc. (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application and requirements of R.C. 4123.84 with 
regard to “flow-through” or residual medical conditions. 
 
(No. 97-774 — Submitted June 25, 1997 — Decided September 24, 1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-960524. 
__________________ 
 
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 
 
2
the “knew or should have known” scienter on her part, given the trust one puts in 
one’s own physician.