Clementi v. Wean United, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether the two-year notice requirement under R.C. *3434123.84(A)(1) bars an additional claim for a “flow-through” or residual psychiatric condition under the Industrial Commission’s continuing jurisdiction to modify orders pursuant to R.C. 4123.52. We have defined a “flow-through” or “residual injury” as “one developing in a body part not originally alleged per R.C. 4123.84(A)(1).” Dent v. AT&T Technologies, Inc. (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 187, 527 N.E. 2d 821. For the following reasons, we hold that the two-year notice requirement under R.C.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dent v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Wargetz v. Villa Sancta Anna Home for the AgedOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Kittle v. KellerOhio Supreme Court · 1967
3Cited by27 opinions
- Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Grant v. Ohio Department of Liquor ControlOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- McKenney v. Hillside Dairy Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Edwards v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
- Specht v. BP America, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.