Ohio appeals court reverses dismissal in case involving fall

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of an auto parts company that denied workers compensation benefits to an employee who fell at work.

“Conflicting expert reports raised a genuine issue of material fact for trial,” the appeals court ruled.

Soon after arriving at the THK Manufacturing of America facility in Hebron, Ohio, Todd Lang was speaking with a coworker about “some work-related matters” when he collapsed, falling to the ground and striking his head on the floor. The resulting head trauma left Mr. Lang “largely incapacitated,” according to the appeals court’s ruling in Lang v. THK Mfg. of Am., Inc., which did not disclose when the fall occurred.

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denied his claim. A district hearing officer also denied Mr. Lang’s claim, ruling that he had not shown that his injuries arose from working for THK.

Mr. Lang appealed two more times and was denied both times. He then sought judicial review of his claim by filing an administrative appeal in court naming THK and the bureau as defendants.

According to the appeals court, THK sought summary judgment and attached an affidavit from an expert “who opined that Lang’s fall and injuries were unrelated to his employment. In response, Lang submitted an affidavit from his own expert …  who expressed the view that Lang likely had developed a condition known as functional neurological disorder.” Lang’s expert’s opinion was that the condition and Mr. Lang’s work activity “precipitated” a seizure, “and that seizure caused Lang to fall and fracture his skull.”

The trial court granted summary judgment, saying Mr. Lang did not provide credible evidence that his injury arose from his employment.

The appeals court disagreed, stating that Mr. Lang’s expert said he “believed that Lang, before collapsing at work, had ‘suffered a seizure due in part to his work environment.’”

According to the appeals court, Mr. Lang’s expert suggested that Mr. Lang suffers from a “functional neurological disorder” and that the ‘higher thought processing’ he had to do at work using “a brain afflicted by the disorder” led to the workplace injury.

The appeals court said “the conflicting expert opinions in Lang’s case created a genuine issue of material fact that precluded the award of summary judgment” and that Mr. Lang was “not required to prove the merits of his claim” when the employer moved for summary judgment.

“Lang’s burden was simply to identify sufficient relevant facts that, if he can prove them at a trial, could prompt a reasonable jury to rule in his favor,” the court wrote.