Renfrow v. Norfolk Southern Railway

Case Updates

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient specific evidence to make an asbestos claim.

The U.S. Chamber joined with the Ohio Chamber and the Ohio Council to defend an important Ohio tort reform that requires “competent medical authority” to sign off on asbestos personal injury lawsuits before they may proceed in Ohio courts. In this case, the plaintiff had submitted a diagnoses provided by a doctor who had never treated the plaintiff. An Ohio appeals court carved out an exception to the “medical authority” rule allowing the case to proceed despite the fact that the tort reform at issue expressly requires that an individual providing the diagnosis must have treated the claimant.

The Ohio General Assembly passed H.B. 292 because Ohio faced an “asbestos litigation crisis” as a result of over 39,000 asbestos personal injury cases pending in its courts. As the Chamber's coalition brief explained to the Court, the Ohio appeals court's decision threatens to eviscerate the “medical criteria” adopted by H.B. 292, and open a floodgate of newly filed asbestos and silica personal injury cases.

Richard D. Schuster, Daniel E. Shuey, and Damien C. Kitte of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc.