Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull
appeals from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Case
Nos. 2015 CV 01488 and 2016 CV 00131.
K. Makridis, (For Appellant).
Scott Lanz and Adam V. Buente, Manchester Newman &
Bennett, (For Appellee).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
Appellant, Walter D. Aho, appeals the judgment of the
Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary
judgment in favor of appellee, RTI International Metals, Inc.
("RTI"). For the following reasons, the trial
court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded
for further proceedings.
Mr. Aho suffered a knee injury while climbing the stairs at
work on the premises of his employer, RTI. The Industrial
Commission allowed Mr. Aho to participate in the worker's
compensation fund, first on a claim for a "strain/sprain
right knee" and subsequently on a claim for a
"medial meniscus tear of the right knee, " for
which Mr. Aho underwent surgery and physical therapy. RTI
appealed the allowance of both claims to the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas, and the cases were consolidated.
RTI took Mr. Aho's deposition. RTI moved for summary
judgment, arguing there was no causal connection between Mr.
Aho's injury and his employment. Mr. Aho took the
deposition of his surgeon, Dr. Thomas Jones, but it was not
filed until after Mr. Aho responded to the motion for summary
judgment and after the trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of RTI. The trial court found Mr. Aho's injury
did not arise out of his employment with RTI and reversed the
Industrial Commission's decisions.
Mr. Aho filed a timely notice of appeal and assigns one error
for our review:
"The trial court committed error in granting
appellee's motion for summary judgment based upon the
conclusion that appellant was not injured in the course of
and out [of] his employment with appellee."
Mr. Aho argues the trial court erred in determining on
summary judgment that he did not suffer a compensable
workplace injury as defined by R.C. 4123.01.
"While summary judgment is a beneficial procedure aiding
in the swift administration of justice, it must also 'be
used cautiously and with the utmost care so that
litigant's right to a trial * * * is not usurped in the
presence of conflicting facts and inferences.'"
Fifth Third Mtge Co. v. Perry, 4th Dist. Pickaway
No. 12CA13, 2013-Ohio- 3308, ¶35, quoting Viock v.
Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 14-15 (6th
Dist.1983). "[T]he trial court may not weigh the
evidence or select among reasonable inferences. * * * Rather,
all doubts and questions must be resolved in the non-moving
party's favor." McCarthy v. Lordstown, 11th
Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0050, 2015- Ohio-955, ¶7
Summary judgment is, therefore, only proper when
(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be
litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing
such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against
whom the ...