Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

Dombelek v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 23, 2003No. 02 CA 39 and 02 CA 116Published

1Concurring in the judgmentDeGenaro, Judge

{¶ 54} I concur in the majority’s opinion through ¶ 27 and its ultimate conclusion. But I cannot agree with the rationale it uses when reaching that conclusion.

{¶ 55} The majority states that the three-part test to be used in order to determine when a disability due to an occupational disease begins for the purposes of the statute of limitations found in R.C. 4123.85 is an instructional guide and that it is ill-advised for this court to define what the terms used in that test mean, finding that the determination of when a disability due to an occupational disease begins is solely within the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Doe v. ShafferOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Lewis v. TrimbleOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. White v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Craddock v. Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982

1 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