Broach v. Midland Steel Products Co.

476 N.E.2d 374, 16 Ohio App. 3d 425

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Broach v. Midland Steel Products Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals
476 N.E.2d 374, 16 Ohio App. 3d 425

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership