Mutters v. White Castle Sys., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MUTTERS, APPELLANT, V. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., APPELLEE, ET AL. [Cite as Mutters v. White Castle Sys., Inc. (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Workers compensation Application and requirements of R.C. 4123.84 with regard to flow-through or residual medical conditions. (No. 97-774 Submitted June 25, 1997 Decided September 24, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-960524. __________________ Becker, Reed, Tilton & Hastings and Dennis A. Becker, for appellant. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Duane A. Boggs, for appellee. __________________ The discretionary appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court to apply Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. I do not interpret this remand as an order to grant the claimant her award. Rather, I interpret it as an order to the court to apply the new standards in Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207, to this fact pattern to determine whether claimant knew or should have known of her condition. However, I would also caution the trial court to factor in her doctor s apparent refusal to refer her for psychiatric care after she specifically requested it and the effect that refusal had upon her delay in diagnosis. It is possible that the doctor s refusal to refer claimant negated any threshold of the knew or should have known scienter on her part, given the trust one puts in one s own physician. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
