The plaintiff commenced this case after the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denied her request for widow’s benefits of her late husband, who died from lung cancer allegedly due to asbestos exposure while working at General Motors. General Motors argued that the decedent’s long-time smoking habit of one to two packs of cigarettes per day was the sole cause of his lung cancer. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Fund because: (1) the decedent was exposed to asbestos at GM; (2) these conditions resulted in a hazard of exposure to asbestos, which distinguished his employment in character from employment generally; (3) this employment created a risk of contracting lung cancer in a greater degree and in a different manner from the general public; and (4) this exposure was a proximate cause of his lung cancer. Defendant General Motors appealed on three grounds.
First, GM argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict. Under Ohio Worker’s Compensation law, the plaintiff can receive widow’s benefits if her husband’s death was caused by an occupational disease; lung cancer is not a specified occupational disease, thus the plaintiff must demonstrate that it meets the criteria for an occupational disease. Here the plaintiff had to show her husband contracted and died from an occupational disease as a result of an injurious exposure to asbestos during employment, and she must establish a direct and proximate causal relationship between the employment and the condition alleged. The appellate court reviewed the evidence of asbestos at GM, which included co-worker testimony regarding asbestos cloth, pipe insulation, furnaces, firebrick, and ladles. GM argued this testimony was insufficient because the co-worker only worked with decedent for a few weeks. However, GM failed to provide any testimony countering the presence of these products at its facility. The court also noted the diagnosis of “asbestosis” in decedent’s medical records. Both the plaintiff’s expert and GM’s two experts testified that occupational asbestos exposure combined with smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer, and whether decedent developed lung cancer as a result of his employment with GM could be decided either way. The court listed twelve factors supporting the trial court’s denial of GM’s motion for directed verdict. The appellate court thus overruled GM’s first assignment of error.
Second, GM argued the trial court erred in admitting GM documents over GM’s objections. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. GM argued these documents were not relevant, however these documents tended to establish the presence of asbestos at the GM facility. The appellate court also noted that the record suggests that GM impeded the discovery process for several months by refusing to comply with numerous discovery requests. This assignment of error was likewise overruled.
Third, GM argued the trial court erred in admitting Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion based on facts not admitted into evidence. However plaintiff provided evidence in support of each hypothetical question asked of her expert, and the trial court again did not abuse its discretion in admitting this opinion.