Title: Martin v. Pfeiffer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. PFEIFFER, ADMR., BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, 
ET AL.; DELPHI CHASSIS DIVISION, F.K.A. DELCO MORAIN DIVISION, GENERAL 
MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Martin v. Pfeiffer (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 310.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application and requirements of R.C. 4123.84 with 
regard to “flow-through” or residual medical conditions. 
(No. 96-2396 — Submitted June 25, 1997 — Decided July 30, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 15778. 
___________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
for appellant. 
 
Crew, Buchanan & Lowe, Joseph P. Buchanan and James G. Neary, for 
appellee. 
___________________ 
 
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., dissents. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent from the reversal 
based on Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207.  
Factually, this case is quite different and the evidence is quite clear that the 
plaintiff “knew or should have known” of her depression claim back in 1990.  
Therefore, the test laid out in Lewis has been met and plaintiff is barred by the 
statute of limitations from presenting her claim.