Legal Opinion

Edwards v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1989No. 88-15PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We begin our review by noting that the appellate court judgment was rendered without the benefit of our recent decision in Clementi v. Wean United, Inc. (1988), 39 Ohio St. 3d 342, 530 N.E. 2d 909. Clementi, in applying R.C. 4123.84’s statute of limitations to “flow-through” conditions, requires any motion for additional allowance to be filed within two years “of the time claimant knew or should have known of the additional condition.” Id. at syllabus.

Applying Clementi to the present facts, we must determine whether appellee knew or should have known of the psychiatric condition prior to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clementi v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Dietrick v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Banks v. Ltv Steel Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Hoar v. Schneider Transport, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997

2 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