Court Opinion

ID: 3768274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:21:52.257788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:20.211593
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result reached by the majority.  However, unlike the majority, I would not do so on the basis of resjudicata.
I do not find res judicata bars appellant's present claim. The September 20, 1996 denial of appellant's motion for further allowance in claim number 0021986-22 was based upon inactivity for six years.  It was not a decision on the merits.  Accordingly, I disagree with the majority appellant's claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Appellant's  present claim alleged injury to the right ear1 which might well have arisen subsequent to 1984, based upon continued exposure at the job site.  Based upon my review of the medical reports, I find the statute of limitations as embodied in R.C. 4123.85 provides an independent ground for granting summary judgment to appellee. Accordingly, I concur in the majority's decision to affirm the trial court's judgment.
_______________________________
                               _______________________________ JUDGE WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
JUDGMENT ENTRY
CASE NO. 1998CA00107
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
______________________________
______________________________
                               ______________________________ JUDGES
1 0021986-22 did not recognize any injury to the right ear.