 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marinkovic v. Diversified Inventory Solution2/6/2002
Decision and Journal Entry
Appellant, Rada Marinkovic, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to appellees, Diversified Inventory Solution, Inc. ("Diversified") and the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"). We affirm.
On February 2, 2000, appellant filed an application for payment of compensation and medical benefits with the BWC after allegedly sustaining injuries to her lower back, right hip, and right ankle during the course and scope of her employment with Diversified. The BWC denied appellant's application for payment of compensation and medical benefits on March 2, 2000, and stated that an appeal not received within 14 days is final. Neither appellant nor Diversified appealed the BWC's order. However, on April 10, 2000, appellant moved for reconsideration of her application in light of the decision in Greene v. Conrad (Aug. 21, 1997), Franklin App. No. 96APE12-1780. The BWC referred her motion for reconsideration to the Industrial Commission of Ohio ("IC").
The district hearing officer of the IC determined that appellant's claim was not similar to Greene and, therefore, found that the BWC's decision, on March 2, 2000, constituted the final adjudication of the issue. Following the district hearing officer's decision, appellant appealed the decision to an IC staff hearing officer. The staff hearing officer affirmed the district hearing officer's decision declining to take jurisdiction over appellant's claim. Thereafter, appellant appealed the staff hearing officer's decision to the IC. The IC refused appellant's appeal. Appellant then moved for reconsideration of the IC's order; however, the IC denied appellant's motion for reconsideration.
On October 30, 2000, appellant filed an appeal to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. Appellees moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Appellant timely appeals raising two assignments of error for review.
Assignment of error I
"The trial court erred in granting Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment when it found that [ ] Appellant's second workers' compensation claim was barred by res judicata pursuant to the case law set forth in Greene v. Conrad and the requirements of the [IC's] Resolution 98-1-02."
In her first assignment of error, appellant avers that the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court erroneously interpreted Greene v. Conrad and erroneously applied Resolution 98-1-02 when it found that appellant's second workers' compensation claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We disagree.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate when (1) No 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 motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327. To succeed on a summary judgment motion, the movant "bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning an essential element of the opponent's case." (Emphasis sic). Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292. If the movant satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party "'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 293, quoting Civ.R. 56(E). An appellate court reviews a lower court's entry of summary judgment
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|