Court Opinion

ID: 9392855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 15:06:23.865128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.326803
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp., 2023-Ohio-1530.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                          THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              MARION COUNTY

BRIAN P. CALDWELL,
                                                         CASE NO. 9-22-61
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

      v.

WHIRLPOOL CORP., ET AL.,                                 OPINION

       DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

                 Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 22 CV 127

                                     Judgment Affirmed

                               Date of Decision: May 8, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Michael P. Dusseau for Appellant

        Mark S. Barnes for Appellee
Case No. 9-22-61

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

       {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Brian P. Caldwell (“Caldwell”) appeals the

judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial court

erred in granting summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

                             Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} Caldwell was an employee of the Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”)

who suffered a compensable injury on March 23, 2015. Doc. 1. Caldwell filed a

claim with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation that was subsequently

allowed. On May 2, 2016, the last medical bill was paid under this claim. On

January 11, 2017, a permanent partial disability payment was made to Caldwell and

was the last payment that was made under this claim.

       {¶3} On December 5, 2019, Caldwell sought an allowance of additional

conditions in his case. After a hearing on this matter, the district hearing officer

denied this request. This decision was appealed and subsequently affirmed by a

staff hearing officer. The Industrial Commission then declined to hear Caldwell’s

appeal. On June 19, 2020, Caldwell filed an appeal with the Marion County Court

of Common Pleas. However, he voluntarily dismissed this matter on April 30, 2021.

       {¶4} On April 20, 2022, Caldwell refiled his appeal with the Marion County

Court of Common Pleas. On May 27, 2022, Whirlpool filed a motion for summary

judgment, pointing to the fact that more than five years had elapsed since Caldwell

                                         -2-
Case No. 9-22-61

had received his last payment for this claim on January 11, 2017. Whirlpool argued

that Caldwell’s claims had, therefore, expired by January 11, 2022 because the five-

year period allotted by R.C. 4123.52 had ended. On October 3, 2022, the trial court

granted summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool.

       {¶5} Caldwell filed his notice of appeal on November 2, 2022. On appeal,

he raises the following two assignments of error:

                              First Assignment of Error

       This Court should vacate the Trial Court’s entry granting
       summary judgment and remand the case to the Trial Court for
       further proceedings. The Trial Court failed to correctly apply the
       savings statute when it concluded that the statute of limitations
       had passed since no benefits or compensation had been paid for
       five years despite the voluntary dismissal of the prior complaint.

                             Second Assignment of Error

       The Trial Court’s reliance on Chatfield v. Whirlpool Corp., 2021-
       Ohio-4365 was misplaced and the holding in Chatfield should be
       reexamined as the application of this decision creates due process
       and other procedural issues and is a change in practice from prior
       case law.

In our analysis, we will consider Caldwell’s second assignment of error before his

first assignment of error.

                             Second Assignment of Error

       {¶6} Caldwell contends that this Court should reconsider its prior decision in

Chatfield v. Whirlpool Corp, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-20, 2021-Ohio-4365, ¶ 15.

As the appellant has not offered any compelling reasons for us to reexamine our

                                         -3-
Case No. 9-22-61

prior decision, we decline to revisit this precedent at this juncture. Accordingly,

Caldwell’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                            First Assignment of Error

      {¶7} Caldwell argues that the trial court erred by granting Whirlpool’s

motion for summary judgment.

                                 Legal Standard

      {¶8} “Appellate courts consider a summary judgment order under a de novo

standard of review.” Bates Recycling, Inc. v. Conaway, 2018-Ohio-5056, 126

N.E.3d 341, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.), quoting James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Neifer, 3d

Dist. Hancock No. 5-16-20, 2016-Ohio-7641, ¶ 5. Under Civ.R. 56(C),

      [s]ummary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
      depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions,
      affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact,
      if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue
      of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
      as a matter of law * * *. A summary judgment shall not be
      rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and
      only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can
      come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the
      party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made,
      that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation
      construed most strongly in the party’s favor.

Civ.R. 56(C). Thus, summary judgment is to be granted

      only when it is clear ‘(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any
      material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as
      a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but
      one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against
      whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled
      to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.’

                                        -4-
Case No. 9-22-61

Beair v. Management & Training Corp., 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-07, 2021-Ohio-

4110, ¶ 15, quoting Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66,

375 N.E.2d 46, 47 (1978).

       {¶9} Initially, “[t]he party moving for summary judgment has the initial

burden ‘to inform the trial court of the basis for the motion, identifying the portions

of the record, including the pleadings and discovery, which demonstrate the absence

of a genuine issue of material fact.’” Middleton v. Holbrook, 3d Dist. Marion No.

9-15-47, 2016-Ohio-3387, ¶ 8, quoting Reinbolt v. Gloor, 146 Ohio App.3d 661,

664, 767 N.E.2d 1197 (3d Dist. 2001). “The burden then shifts to the party opposing

the summary judgment.” Schmidt Machine Company v. Swetland, 3d Dist. Wyandot

No. 16-20-07, 2021-Ohio-1236, ¶ 23, quoting Middleton at ¶ 8. “In order to defeat

summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not rely on mere denials but ‘must

set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Byrd v. Smith,

110 Ohio St.3d 24, 2006-Ohio-3455, 850 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 10, quoting Civ.R. 56(E).

       {¶10} “[B]ecause summary judgment is a procedural device to terminate

litigation, it must be awarded with caution.” Williams v. ALPLA, Inc., 2017-Ohio-

4217, 92 N.E.3d 256 (3d Dist.), quoting Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d

356, 358-359, 604 N.E.2d 138 (1992). “The court must thus construe all evidence

and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-moving party * * *.” New Technology

Products Pty Ltd. v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-22, 2022-

                                           -5-
Case No. 9-22-61

Ohio-3780, ¶ 52, quoting Webster v. Shaw, 2016-Ohio-1484, 63 N.E.3d 677, ¶ 8 (3d

Dist.).

          {¶11} Further, “R.C. 4123.52 governs the continuing jurisdiction of the

Industrial Commission of Ohio and essentially places a statute of limitations on

workers’ compensation claims.” Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 10, quoting Perez v. Univ.

Hosp. Health Sys., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98427, 2012-Ohio-5896, ¶ 12. This

provision reads, in its relevant part, as follows:

          The jurisdiction of the industrial commission and the authority of
          the administrator of workers’ compensation over each case is
          continuing, and the commission may make such modification or
          change with respect to former findings or orders with respect
          thereto, as, in its opinion is justified. No modification or change
          nor any finding or award in respect of any claim shall be made
          with respect to disability, compensation, dependency, or benefits,
          after five years from the date of injury in the absence of the
          payment of medical benefits under this chapter or in the absence
          of payment of compensation under section 4123.57, 4123.58, or
          division (A) or (B) of section 4123.56 of the Revised Code or wages
          in lieu of compensation in a manner so as to satisfy the
          requirements of section 4123.84 of the Revised Code, in which
          event the modification, change, finding, or award shall be made
          within five years from the date of the last payment of
          compensation or from the date of death, nor unless written notice
          of claim for the specific part or parts of the body injured or
          disabled has been given as provided in section 4123.84 or 4123.85
          of the Revised Code. The commission shall not make any
          modification, change, finding, or award which shall award
          compensation for a back period in excess of two years prior to the
          date of filing application therefor.

R.C. 4123.52(A). “The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized R.C. 4123.52

‘permit[s] finality [of the claim] through extinguishment after a set period of

                                          -6-
Case No. 9-22-61

inactivity.’” Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Romans v. Elder

Beerman Stores, Corp., 100 Ohio St.3d 165, 2003-Ohio-5363, 797 N.E.3d 82, ¶ 8.

       Moreover, it is well-settled that it is incumbent upon a workers’
       compensation claimant to timely invoke the continuing
       jurisdiction granted to the Industrial Commission by R.C.
       4123.52 for additional compensation. Sechler [v. Krouse], 56 Ohio
       St.2d [185,] at 190[, 383 N.E.2d 572 (1978)]. Further, the Supreme
       Court of Ohio has held that ‘the de novo nature of an R.C.
       4123.512 appeal proceeding [to the common pleas court] puts at
       issue all elements of a claimant’s right to participate in the
       workers’ compensation fund.’ Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of
       Workers’ Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-5639, ¶ 2.

Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 14. See also Williams v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 12th Dist.

Preble No. CA2013-09-006, 2014-Ohio-1889, ¶ 17.

                                  Legal Analysis

       {¶12} In Chatfield v. Whirlpool Corp., the final payment to Chatfield was

made on September 28, 2015. Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 15. On June 19, 2019, Chatfield

filed a motion for allowance of additional conditions that was denied. Id. at ¶ 11.

Chatfield eventually filed an appeal with the court of common pleas on May 18,

2020. Id. at ¶ 4. On February 24, 2021, Whirlpool filed a motion for summary

judgment, arguing “that Chatfield’s claim had expired, as a matter of law, on

September 28, 2020” because the five-year period allotted for such claims in R.C.

4123.52 had passed. Id. at ¶ 5.

       {¶13} Chatfield argued that the filing of her motion on June 19, 2019 tolled

the five-year period allotted in R.C. 4123.52. Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 11. This Court

                                        -7-
Case No. 9-22-61

rejected this argument, concluding that her claim had expired on September 28,

2020 and that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this basis.

Id. at ¶ 15. In the case presently before us, the parties do not dispute that Whirlpool

made no payments to Caldwell after January 11, 2017. Thus, pursuant to our

holding in Chatfield, Caldwell’s claim had expired by operation of law by January

11, 2022. See Cocherl v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-

1100, 2007-Ohio-3225, ¶ 30 (finding a workers’ compensation claim was “dead by

operation of law” after the five-year period allotted by R.C. 4123.52).

       {¶14} Against this conclusion, Caldwell argues that his reliance on Ohio’s

savings statute to refile this appeal distinguishes this situation from Chatfield.

Caldwell notes that the savings statute is applicable to workers’ compensation

claims. Lewis v. Connor, 21 Ohio St.3d 1, 487 N.E.2d 285 (1985), at the syllabus.

However, in this case, Caldwell was able to avail himself of the savings statute as

he was permitted to refile this case with the trial court. The savings statute does not

change the fact that this type of claim expires by operation of law after the five-

years allotted under the conditions set forth R.C. 4123.52. Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 15.

       {¶15} In Chatfield, the filing of the action with the court of common pleas

did not toll the period set forth in R.C. 4123.52. Similarly, in the case presently

before us, the refiling of an action with the court of common pleas did not toll the

period set forth in R.C. 4123.52. The evidence in the record clearly establishes that

this action has progressed beyond the five-year period that is permitted under R.C.

                                         -8-
Case No. 9-22-61

4123.52(A). As such, Caldwell’s claims have expired. Chatfield, supra, at ¶ 15.

Thus, having viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment. For

this reason, Caldwell’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

                                                                  Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

                                         -9-