Court Opinion

ID: 9803250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 15:27:53.700858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:57.274734
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 34} R.C. 2307.92 may be a well-intentioned statute, but in this case, it is working a tremendous hardship on Cleo Renfrow by requiring testimony from a treating physician, which Veterans Affairs (“VA”) patients find exceedingly difficult to produce. Still, one does wonder whether the outcome would have been different had counsel subpoenaed Dr. Lynch or any of the other VA doctors who treated Gerald Renfrow. At a minimum, that action would have prevented this court from concluding that Cleo Renfrow had abandoned her efforts to comply with R.C. 2307.92.