In all cases of occupational disease, or death resulting from occupational disease, claims for compensation or benefits are forever barred unless, within one year after the disability due to the disease began, or within such longer period as does not exceed six months after diagnosis of the occupational disease by a licensed physician, certified nurse-midwife, clinical nurse specialist, or certified nurse practitioner or within one year after death occurs, application is made to the industrial commission or the bureau of workers' compensation or to the employer if the employer is a self-insuring employer.
Dombelek v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 797 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 28דThe issue on appeal is whether there are material facts in dispute concerning the application of the statute of limitations contained in R.C. 4123.85, which requires a claimant to file a workers’ compensation claim “within two years after the disability due to the disease began[.”
White v. Mayfield, 523 N.E.2d 497 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 18דIn the cause sub judice we are asked to interpret the pertinent language of R.C. 4123.85 as it *12 applies to the facts developed below.”
Jacobs v. Teledyne, Inc., 529 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 5דAppellant was still able to perform as a foundry worker for Teledyne.”
Chieffo v. Ysd Indus., Inc., 809 N.E.2d 1186 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5דThe Ohio Supreme Court has established a three-part test to use in interpreting when a disability due to disease has begun under R.C. 4123.85: {¶ 11} “ ‘It is hereby directed that since R.”
Hunter v. Canton Drop Forge, Inc., 2024 Ohio 2725 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10ד{¶23} Compared with R.C. §4123.85, which states: In all cases of occupational disease, or death resulting from occupational disease, claims for compensation or benefits are forever barred unless, within two years after the disability due to the disease began, or within such…”
Craddock v. Eagle Picher Indus., Inc., 457 N.E.2d 338 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3דR.C 4123.85 provides: “In all cases of occupational disease, or death resulting from occupational disease, claims for compensation or benefits shall be forever barred unless, within two years after the disability due to the disease began, or within such longer period as does not…”
Weisenauer v. Am. Stand., Inc., 2014 Ohio 1569 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15ד13-13-25 contested the application, arguing that Weisenauer’s claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations set out in R.C. 4123.85. {¶5} An administrative hearing was held on the matter before a District Hearing Officer on February 1, 2012.”
DesMarais v. Strauss & Troy, 699 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4ד” R.C. 4123.85. According to the statute, appellant had to file an application for benefits within two years of the time that her “disability due to the disease began.”
Grant v. Connor, 525 N.E.2d 1383 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3דAs presented in the briefs and decisions of the lower courts, the sole issue before us is whether plaintiff’s claim was timely filed under R.C. 4123.85. In particular, the issue as addressed by the parties concerns the construction to be given the term “disability” contained in…”
Svet v. Mayfield, 564 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10דUpon review, this court held that pursuant to R.C. 4123.85, the six-month limitation does not begin to run until a disease is diagnosed as occupational.”
State ex rel. Szekely v. Indus. Comm'n, 239 N.E.2d 665 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 2ד” Section 4123.85 of the Revised Code provides as follows: “In all cases of occupational disease, or death, result *252 ing from occupational disease, claims for compensation or benefits shall be forever barred unless, within two years after the disability due to the disease…”
Cosner v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 636 N.E.2d 418 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4דThe court below granted the appellees a summary judgment based on its finding that Cosner became disabled by his disease no later than 1988, as alleged in his tort complaint, and was therefore barred from participation in the Workers’ Compensation Fund by R.C. 4123.85. Cosner…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.