Martin v. Pfeiffer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. PFEIFFER, ADMR., BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, ET AL.; DELPHI CHASSIS DIVISION, F.K.A. DELCO MORAIN DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEE. [Cite as Martin v. Pfeiffer (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 310.] Workers compensation Application and requirements of R.C. 4123.84 with regard to flow-through or residual medical conditions. (No. 96-2396 Submitted June 25, 1997 Decided July 30, 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. CA 15778. ___________________ Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, for appellant. Crew, Buchanan & Lowe, Joseph P. Buchanan and James G. Neary, for appellee. ___________________ 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., dissents. LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the reversal based on Lewis v. Trimble (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 231, 680 N.E.2d 1207. Factually, this case is quite different and the evidence is quite clear that the plaintiff knew or should have known of her depression claim back in 1990. Therefore, the test laid out in Lewis has been met and plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations from presenting her claim.
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.
