An Ohio appeals court reversed a summary judgment that had stopped a juvenile corrections officer from seeking added allowances in a workers’ compensation case, finding enough evidence to send the dispute to trial.
In Taye v. Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Corr. Facility, the fight turned on whether the officer met Ohio’s legal standard for proving a “substantial aggravation” of a preexisting condition.
The issue wasn’t whether he had prior problems. It was how the law measures worsening.
The officer was injured during a work incident in April 2021. His claim was allowed for multiple sprains. Later, he sought additional allowances, arguing the incident substantially aggravated a partial rotator cuff tear and shoulder impingement.
The Industrial Commission of Ohio rejected those added conditions, citing a lack of objective evidence. The officer appealed.
In court, the employer argued the claim failed because there was no pre-injury medical documentation establishing a baseline condition. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals didn’t.
The panel said Ohio law requires proof of substantial aggravation through objective diagnostic findings, objective clinical findings, or objective test results.
It doesn’t require separate medical records showing the condition existed, or how severe it was, before the workplace injury. Adding that requirement, the court said, goes beyond the statute.
The judges pointed to evidence the officer submitted from his treating chiropractor. That included positive objective clinical tests shortly after the incident, later MRI findings showing degenerative changes, and sworn testimony and an affidavit stating the work incident substantially aggravated the shoulder condition.
Taken together, the court said, that evidence cleared the threshold for trial. Whether it ultimately proves substantial aggravation remains open. But the door stays open too.
