Legal Opinion

Mewhorter v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1986No. 85-1040PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.

This appeal is predicated solely upon the narrow question of whether the bill and attachments filed by Dr. Lin, which were averred to be related to the procedures performed in February 1978, sufficed to give notice for the purposes of the limitation period specified in R.C. 4123.84(A)(1). For the following reasons we hold that the aforesaid bill and attachments constituted sufficient notice, and accordingly we reverse the court of appeals solely on the question of jurisdiction and without opinion as to the merits of appellant’s workers’ compensation claim.

R.C. 4123.84 states, in pertinent…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Roseborough v. N.L. IndustriesOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Dent v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Eichenberger v. Woodlands Assisted Living Residence, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Hull v. MayfieldOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Lahoud v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API