A recent decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an individual who sought workers’ compensation benefits after claiming an on-the-job injury, with the court finding that he failed to identify specific medical conditions as required by law. The ruling clarifies what is needed for such claims to proceed in court and highlights procedural requirements for workers seeking compensation.
Jeremy L. Larrick filed his complaint in Logan County Common Pleas Court on February 27, 2025, naming W&S Construction LLC and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation as defendants. The appeal was decided by the Third Appellate District on April 13, 2026, under case number 8-25-14.
According to court documents, Larrick reported an injury to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) on August 2, 2024, alleging he was hurt during his employment with W&S Construction on November 10, 2023. The BWC denied his claim later that month, prompting Larrick to appeal through administrative channels. Both a District Hearing Officer and a Staff Hearing Officer reviewed his appeals but found that he had not proven an employee-employer relationship with W&S Construction and did not address any specific medical issues or conditions in their orders.
After exhausting administrative appeals—culminating in a January 2, 2025 order from the Industrial Commission refusing further review—Larrick took his case to common pleas court as permitted under Ohio law. In his initial complaint, he stated generally that he suffered “an accidental injury” but did not specify particular medical conditions or injuries for which he sought participation in the state fund.
W&S Construction responded by filing a motion for a more definite statement on April 1, 2025. The company requested details about how the alleged injury occurred, which specific medical conditions were being claimed, and proof that those conditions had been addressed administratively. When Larrick did not immediately respond, the trial court ordered him to provide this information. On May 6, 2025, Larrick submitted a statement describing being struck in the neck and shoulder by a crane ball while working on a pole barn but again did not list any specific medical diagnoses or show they had been addressed at prior hearings.
Subsequently, W&S Construction moved to dismiss the case on May 12, 2025 under Civil Rules 12(B)(6) and 12(C), arguing that Larrick had failed to comply with court orders and legal requirements for specificity. In response, Larrick described pain in his head, neck, back and shoulder and referenced having filed a medical report with BWC but did not include it as part of his court filings. He argued that because administrative decisions had not specifically addressed his medical injuries or conditions, he should be allowed to present all relevant issues at trial.
The trial court granted W&S’s motion to dismiss on July 7, 2025. Citing precedent from Ward v. Kroger Co., it held: “The jury’s role in a worker’s compensation trial is not to identify medical conditions from which Plaintiff may suffer. It is to consider whether Plaintiff suffers from a specific medical condition identified by Plaintiff.” The ruling emphasized that failing to identify any specific condition before the Commission means such claims cannot proceed as a matter of law.
Larrick appealed this decision on August 6, 2025 raising two main arguments: first—that it was error for the trial court to require him to submit more detailed information; second—that granting dismissal was improper because Ohio is a notice pleading state and does not require specificity at this stage under R.C. 4123.512 or Civil Rule 8(A). However, the appellate panel found both arguments unpersuasive.
On review of procedural history and applicable law—including Ward v. Kroger—the appellate judges concluded that only those medical conditions presented at the administrative level can be considered upon appeal in common pleas court under R.C. 4123.512 proceedings: “A workers’ compensation claim is simply the recognition of the employee’s right to participate in the fund for a specific injury or medical condition…and it is only for that condition as set forth in the claim.”
The opinion further noted that although evidence at trial may be considered de novo (afresh), “the facts surrounding the claimed right to participate in the fund and alleged injury are strictly limited” to what was previously presented administratively: “To allow claims to first be heard before the trial court would be inconsistent with [the] statutory scheme because it usurps commission’s authority as initial adjudicator.” Thus without identifying specific injuries already raised before BWC or its hearing officers—and without including them clearly in his petition—Larrick could not move forward with his lawsuit.
In conclusion: “For these reasons both of appellant’s assignments of error are overruled,” wrote Judge Mark C. Miller for a unanimous panel including Judges William R. Zimmerman and John R. Willamowski.
Attorneys involved were Jana K. Yenyo representing Jeremy L. Larrick; Michael Soto representing W&S Construction LLC; Diane Burris representing Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation; case number is 8-25-14.
Source: 2026Ohio1338_Larrick_v_W_and_S_Constructions_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
