Ryan v. Connor
Ohio Supreme Court
1Dissent · HolmesHolmes, J.
The majority, in reaching its conclusion, is not merely liberally construing the law in favor of the claimant, but is again rewriting and enacting new law in the workers’ compensation field.
Arriving at its novel position here, which overrules Szymanski v. Halle’s (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 195 [17 O.O.3d 120], the majority, although by footnote denying such, incorrectly relies upon the law as pronounced in Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 131, and Paugh v. Hanks (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 72. The author of the majority opinion also authored Paugh, the first sentence of which adopts…
Also in this document: Dissent · Wright; Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Phung v. Waste Management, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
- Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Malone v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
- Aiken v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.