Plaintiff declared vexatious litigator loses appeal against fast-food giant

Carline M. Curry’s legal battle against a major fast-food chain has hit a significant roadblock. On February 19, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed Curry’s appeal against Wendy’s International, LLC. The dismissal was based on procedural grounds, as Curry had been previously declared a vexatious litigator and failed to obtain the necessary court leave before filing her appeal.

The case began when Carline M. Curry filed a notice of appeal and complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on August 6, 2024. This was in response to a decision by the Industrial Commission of Ohio on May 22, 2024, which denied her workers’ compensation claim for injuries she claimed to have sustained while working at Wendy’s. However, Wendy’s filed a motion to dismiss on February 28, 2025, citing that Curry was required to obtain leave from the court due to her status as a vexatious litigator—a designation given by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas back in November 2022.

Curry opposed this motion by arguing that she had an “absolute right” to file an appeal and that being represented by counsel negated the need for obtaining leave. Despite these arguments, the trial court sided with Wendy’s and granted their motion to dismiss on June 4, 2025. The court emphasized that R.C. 4123.512 did not support Curry’s claim of having an absolute right without obtaining prior leave and clarified that representation by counsel does not exempt one from this requirement.

The crux of the appellate court’s decision lay in Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) Section 2323.52 concerning vexatious litigators—individuals who habitually engage in frivolous litigation without reasonable grounds. According to this statute, once declared a vexatious litigator, an individual must seek permission from the court before initiating any legal proceedings or appeals. Since Curry did not secure such permission before filing her appeal within the stipulated timeframe under App.R. 4(A), the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over her case.

In conclusion, despite Carline M. Curry’s efforts to challenge Wendy’s International regarding her workers’ compensation claim denial, procedural missteps led to her appeal being dismissed without addressing its substantive merits. This case underscores the importance of adhering strictly to procedural requirements when navigating complex legal systems.

Representing Carline M. Curry was Mitchell A. Stern from Nager, Romaine & Schneiberg law firm while Donald P. Beck from Park Street Law Group represented Wendy’s International LLC in this matter before Judges Beatty Blunt and Edelstein under Case ID No:25AP-521.