Broach v. Midland Steel Products Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
476 N.E.2d 374, 16 Ohio App. 3d 425
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
On February 7, 1980, Delores Broach (plaintiff) fell and injured her back and ankle during her employment with Midland Steel Products Company (Midland) (defendant). Broach was subsequently taken to the hospital and advised to see a doctor. On February 13, 1980, Broach was examined by her physician, Dr. Sheldon Kaffen. Per Midland’s request, Broach was also examined by Dr. John Posch. In June 1980, Broach filed a C-50 application with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (the bureau), which required Broach to describe how her injuries occurred. The application required Broach to detail witnesses to the incident, but Broach stated that it was unknown. When the application required Broach to specify the nature of her injury, Broach only included her lower back. Midland contested the claim, but it was allowed. Midland appealed. The Industrial Commission affirmed the allowance. In December 1981, Midland filed a notice of appeal from the decision and order of the commission with the court of common pleas. During trial, Midland requested that Broach’s C-50 application be admitted into evidence, but the request was denied. However, it was admitted for purposes of appeal to show a waiver of patient-physician privilege and was proffered into the record. In July 1983, the jury found in Broach’s favor and found that Broach sustained injuries to her back and ankle. Midland appealed, arguing that Broach’s responses in her C-50 application constituted admissions under the rules of evidence, which affected Broach’s credibility regarding injuries to her ankle.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Day, C.J.)
Concurrence (Markus, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.