390 N.E.2d 832
No. 77-1196Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided June 20, 1979.
Workers’ compensation — Compensable injury — Gradually worsening condition not includable.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
William J. Peavy (plaintiff-appellee herein) was employed by the Valley Mould Iron Corporation (appellant herein) from 1943 to 1965. From 1948 to 1965, he served as a mould chipper. As a mould chipper, he was required to scrape the irregularities and scrap from the interior and exterior of ingot moulds. This task was accomplished through the use of chisels, sledges, grinders and pneumatic chipping hammers. While operating a pneumatic chipping hammer, Peavy would assume a bent or seated position holding the air hammer in his right hand while resting his right elbow on his right thigh. He performed this same job in essentially the same manner for 17 years, and no report or claim of injury to his right thigh was made during that period of time.
On August 2, 1965, appellee consulted a doctor and complained of pain in his right thigh. After this date, he no
Page 408
longer reported for work. Peavy was hospitalized for acute arthritis of the right thigh; and upon discharge from the hospital, his doctor diagnosed his ailment as osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease) of the lumbosacral spine and right hip joint. After being discharged, the appellee applied for and received non-occupational group accident and health benefits through his employer’s insurance carrier. Some three months after leaving the hospital, appellee’s doctor amended his diagnosis to include chronic myositis (inflammation of a muscle) of the right thigh.
Although there was some doubt about whether the arthritis aggravated the myositis or vice versa and about which condition occurred first,[1] the evidence adduced from appellee’s doctor clearly established that there was no specific or particular injury which Peavy could point to as causing the inflammation of his thigh. To the contrary, the evidence established that appellee’s condition was one that developed over a long period of time and gradually worsened as time went by.[2]
Page 409
In February of 1966, appellee’s benefits from the non-occupational insurance coverage were exhausted. On April 25, 1966, he filed a claim with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation alleging that he had developed an occupational disease of chronic myositis of the right thigh. On April 25, 1966, he filed a second claim alleging that the same claim constituted an occupational injury.
Both the occupational disease and the occupational injury claims were unsuccessfully appealed through the administrative process of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and the Industrial Commission. The occupational disease claim was not appealed further,[3] but Peavy did appeal the denial of his injury claim to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. The Court of Common Pleas granted judgment for the defendants. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the lower court’s decision was reversed based upon the theory that Peavy had suffered a compensable injury within the meaning of R.C. 4123.01(C).
Upon reconsideration of this court’s original decision to deny certification, we allowed a motion to certify the record on July 26, 1978.
“However, in answer to the question that you asked me, it is impossible for anyone to say whether or not this man’s primary symptoms were due to the osteoarthritis or were due to the myositis of the thigh. One can only state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the myositis of the thigh or any other problems relating to the soft tissues of the thigh would be aggravated by the osteoarthritis, and the osteoarthritis would be aggravated by any change in the soft tissues of the thigh, which means that the symptoms of the arthritis would become worse as a result of this.”
When asked on cross-examination whether he had stated that it was impossible for anyone to say that Peavy’s primary symptoms were due to the arthritis or the myositis, the physician answered, “Yes, it’s like the chicken and the egg, nobody knows which came first.”
On cross-examination, the doctor answered the following questions:
“Q. Doctor, this myositis condition which you described is something which would come from a long period of accumulative effects of a motion?
“A. It could, yes.
“Q. It could not happen overnight or instantly?
“A. No, it usually doesn’t.
“Q. In this particular case, did it?
“A. In this particular case, I don’t think it did, I think it happened over a long period of time.”
Messrs. Tricarichi, Carnes Kube, Mr. Charles S. Tricarichi
and Mr. Peter H. Weinberger, for appellee.
Messrs. Baker, Hostetler Patterson, Mr. John A. Zangerle an Mr. Louis A. Colombo, for appellant.
Per Curiam.
The question before this court is whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the appellee had suffered a compensable injury when the alleged injury developed gradually over an extended period of time. The issue presented in this cause is not one of first impression
Page 410
because the facts and issues presented here are essentially the same as those raised in Bowman v. National Graphics Corp. (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 222.
In Bowman, supra, as in the instant cause, the claimant could not point to a specific incident which caused the ailment complained of, nor could he deny that his disability was the result of a gradually worsening condition. Therefore, we find that Bowman is controlling herein.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., dissent on the basis of the dissenting opinion of SWEENEY, J., in Bowman v. National Graphics Corp. (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 222, 226.