 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson v. Barmet Aluminum Corp.8/30/2000
or.
Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion that the non-moving party has no evidence to prove its case. The moving party must specifically point to some evidence which demonstrates the non-moving party cannot support its claim. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, citing Dresher v. Burt (1966), 75 Ohio St.3d 280. It is based upon this standard we review appellant's assignment of error.
I.
Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, contends that the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. We disagree. The doctrine of res judicata applies to administrative proceedings that are judicial in nature and where the parties have had sufficient opportunity to litigate the issues involved in the proceeding. Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379, 381. Such doctrine consists of two different but related legal concepts - claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Id. The doctrine of issue preclusion, which is also known as collateral estoppel, "holds that a fact or point that was actually and directly at issue in a previous action, and was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may not be drawn into question in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies, whether the cause of action in the two actions be identical or different." Ft. Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio St. 3d 392, 395. In turn, the doctrine of claim preclusion, which is also known as estoppel by judgment, provides that a "valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Grava, supra, at syllabus. We find that the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment since appellant's claim for herniated disc L3-4 was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. At the September 3, 1993, hearing before an ICO Commission hearing officer, appellant supported his claim for an additional allowance for "bulging disc L3-4" with Dr. Casiano's May 18, 1993, report stating that appellant's "disc herniation at L3-L4 and L4-L5 are due to his industrial injury", Dr. Casiano's August 31, 1993, report and Dr. Tatsumi's March 6, 1993, report. Dr. Tatsumi, in his March 6, 1993, report, opined that, after reviewing appellant's MRI, " here was slight bulging disc at L3-4." Dr. Casiano, relying on Dr. Tatsumi's report and appellant's MRI, also concluded in his report dated August 31, 1993, that appellant suffered from a bulging disc at L3-4. Following the hearing, the district hearing officer disallowed appellant's claim finding that "the requested additional allowance is not related to the injury upon which this claim is predicated." Although a staff hearing officer subsequently affirmed such decision, appellant never filed an appeal of the disallowance of his claim for bulging disc L3-4 with the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas. Thereafter, in 1996 appellant filed a motion with the BWC requesting that his claim be further allowed for "disc herniation L3-L4." Appellant, in support o
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.
|
|