Legal Opinion

Bowling v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1945No. 30090PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

The sole question presented may be stated as follows: Was it absolutely essential for plaintiff to produce expert medical testimony to prove proximate causal relationship between the injury received and the result claimed in order to warrant submission of his case to the jury?

In approaching the solution of that question we must keep in mind that the Workmen’s Compensation Law is to be construed liberally in favor of the injured workman and further that the question of proximate causal relationship between an injury and the claimed result is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.

Our…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Aiken v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Drakulich v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Drew v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Pfister v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Darnell v. EastmanOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. General American Transportation Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Griffin v. Texas Employers' Insurance AssociationTexas Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Burns v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959

20 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