Legal Opinion

Grant v. Connor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1988No. 87-1353PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBryant, J.

As presented in the briefs and decisions of the lower courts, the sole issue before us is whether plaintiff’s claim was timely filed under R.C. 4123.85. In particular, the issue as addressed by the parties concerns the construction to be given the term “disability” contained in that statute.

However, the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 4123.85 does not govern plaintiff’s silicosis claim. Rather, plaintiffs claim is controlled by the statute of limitations once found in R.C. 4123.68(Y). At the time plaintiff filed his silicosis claim, R.C. 4123.68(Y) contained a statute of limitations…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. White v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Preston v. Peabody Coal Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. Teledyne, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. DesMarais v. Strauss & TroyOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Nelson McCoy Pottery Co. v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Lainhart v. Southern Ohio Fabricators, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API