Case Title: State ex rel. Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2008-Ohio-1506

Docket Number: 20070747

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 118 Ohio St.3d 161, 2008-Ohio-
1506.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., APPELLEE, v. 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.,  
118 Ohio St.3d 161, 2008-Ohio-1506.] 
Workers’ compensation — Occupational disease — Last-injurious-exposure rule 
— Liability of successor to self-insured employer. 
(No. 2007-0747 — Submitted February 26, 2008 — Decided April 3, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 06AP-232, 2007-Ohio-1011. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Donald F. Stein has an allowed occupational-disease claim.  We 
must determine which employer is amenable for the workers’ compensation 
claim. 
{¶ 2} Stein worked at Libbey Owens Ford (“LOF”) from 1947 through 
1988 and was exposed to asbestos during much of that time.  From 1947 until 
1970, when it became self-insured, LOF was an employer insured under the state 
fund.  Pilkington North America, Inc. is now the successor to LOF’s self-insured 
claims. 
{¶ 3} In 2003, Stein was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and in 2005, his 
occupational-disease claim was allowed against the self-insured risk under the 
“last-injurious-exposure principle.” Because Pilkington was the successor to 
LOF’s self-insured claims, Pilkington was named the amenable employer.  
Pilkington petitioned the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of 
mandamus, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in assigning 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
workers’ compensation liability to it as a self-insured entity rather than to the 
state-fund LOF risk. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals agreed.  It viewed certain language in State ex 
rel. Erieview Metal Treating Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 147, 2006-
Ohio-2036, 846 N.E.2d 515, as limiting the last-injurious-exposure rule to 
circumstances distinguishable from the case at bar.  It ordered the commission to 
issue an amended order that “appropriately determines allocation of risk liability.”  
2007-Ohio-1011, at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 5} The commission now appeals to this court as of right. 
{¶ 6} Occupational diseases can pose difficult questions of employer 
amenability for workers’ compensation claims.  Some common occupational 
diseases have latency periods of up to 40 years.  When an employee has worked 
for multiple employers during that time, assigning workers’ compensation 
responsibility can be difficult because “it is often impossible to go back over the 
years to quantify the amount of exposure at each job or to pinpoint which 
exposure planted the seeds of eventual disease.”  Erieview at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 7} This problem inspired the concept of last injurious exposure.  
Alluded to as early as 1950, see State ex rel. Marion Power Shovel Co. v. Indus. 
Comm. (1950), 153 Ohio St. 451, 456, 41 O.O. 438, 92 N.E.2d 14, the principle 
assigns responsibility to the employer last providing hazardous exposure.  
Concededly less than perfect, it “subordinates the practically unattainable 
scientific accuracy to the next best thing – consistency.”  Erieview, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 147, 2006-Ohio-2036, 846 N.E.2d 515, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 8} This concept prompted the commission to declare Pilkington to be 
the amenable employer.  Pilkington in turn persuaded the court of appeals that the 
last-injurious-exposure principle did not apply based upon a single sentence from 
Erieview: 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 9} “Thus far, this theory has appeared before Ohio courts in just one 
context: before allowance of a claim, in a situation involving several potentially 
liable employers.  It usually involves a worker who has recently experienced the 
onset of a long-latency occupational disease such as asbestosis or black lung.  It 
always involves a worker who has been exposed to the injurious substance while 
working for each of several employers.  When that worker files a workers’ 
compensation claim, a question arises:  When multiple employers have subjected 
the worker to the hazard, against which employer should the workers’ 
compensation claim be allowed?”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 10} The emphasized sentence was not intended as a limitation.  It was 
only an observation of the history of our encounters with the theory up to that 
time.  It is not an impediment to application here, nor should it be.  The last-
injurious-exposure principle is a practical, workable method for assigning 
responsibility in multiple-employer situations.  Pilkington’s suggestion to deduct 
the average latency period from the year of diagnosis and assign liability to the 
employer that corresponds to that year is no more than a first-injurious-exposure 
rule, which we decline to adopt. 
{¶ 11} The court of appeals limited the application of the rule of last 
injurious exposure based upon an incorrect reading of Erieview.  We therefore 
hold that the commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that Pilkington is 
the amenable employer.  The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., Michael S. Scalzo, and John A. Borell Jr., 
for appellee. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellant. 
______________________