Dent v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The sole issue before this court is whether appellee’s request for recognition of additional conditions (chondromalacia of the patella and arthritic changes of the left knee) is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of R.C. 4123.84.
Appellant argues that the additional conditions were barred by the statute because no formal application for allowance was made until June 30, 1983. The trial court, relying on Mewhorter v. Ex-Cell-O Corp. (1986), 23 Ohio St. 3d 13, 23 OBR 11, 490 N.E. 2d 610, found that notice was given within the two-year period by way of the filing of a fee bill. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mewhorter v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
3Cited by26 opinions
- State ex rel. Miller v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Clementi v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Griffith v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Specht v. BP America, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.