129 N.E.2d 844
No. 34063Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided November 9, 1955.
Workmen’s compensation — Proximate causal relationship between injury and disability — Expert witness — Hypothetical question — Answer cures any deficiency, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County.
The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed with the Industrial Commission an application for workmen’s compensation. The Industrial Commission ordered “that this claim be disallowed on rehearing for the reason that claimant has failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that such incident did in fact occur and that any disability did in fact result therefrom.”
Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, testimony as to causal relationship between the alleged injury and the disability complained of was eliminated from consideration by the court’s sustaining of an objection to a hypothetical question submitted to a physician. The question embraced facts contained in the record and contained the following: “Do you have an opinion as to whether or not there is any causal relationship between the incident described as occurring * * *, the symptoms which followed, and the condition which you found at the time of your examination?” (Emphasis added.) The answer proffered was that in his opinion there was a “direct causal relationship” between the occurrence, the symptoms which have occurred, and the condition found at the time of the examination.
The trial court was of the opinion that the hypothetical question propounded to the doctor did not comply with the law relating to the propounding of hypothetical questions, inasmuch as counsel asked the doctor whether, in his opinion, there wa any causal relationship between the incident and the condition found by the doctor, rather than whether there was a direct or proximate causal relationship. The court sustained a motion for a directed verdict for defendant for the reason that there was no medical testimony as to any causal relationship
Page 256
between the incident in question and the disability, due to the fact that the objection to the hypothetical question propounded to the doctor was sustained, and rendered judgment for defendant.
The Court of Appeals, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The allowance of a motion to certify the record brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Thomas F. Joseph and Mr. Harold E. Gottlieb, for appellant.
Mr. C. William O’Neill, attorney general, Mr. Paul Tague, Jr., and Mr. John M. Tobin, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
The basic question presented is whether the hypothetical question propounded to the medical witness for the purpose of establishing the proper causal connection between the alleged injury and disability was sufficient in inquiring as to “any
causal relationship,” or was it necessary that it inquire as to “a direct or proximate causal relationship,” in order to render the answer thereto admissible in evidence.
This court is of the opinion that any deficiency in the question was cured by the answer thereto, and the trial court was in error in refusing to admit the answer which met the requirement as to proximate cause. Fox v. Industrial Commission, 162 Ohio St. 569, 125 N.E.2d 1.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.
Page 257