Ohio Court Appropriately Instructs Jury on “Eggshell Head” Theory of Liability

An Ohio appellate court affirmed a verdict entered by a trial court on a jury verdict finding an injured employee was entitled to participate in the benefits provided under the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act in spite of the employer’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the so-called “eggshell” or “eggshell head” theory [Towles v. MillerCoors, LLC, 2021-Ohio-34, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 27 (Jan. 11, 2021)]. Noting that the employer had contended the employee’s condition was the result of a natural deterioration and not caused by a workplace incident, the appellate court found the trial court’s instruction to be completely proper. It added that the employer had unnecessarily tried to confuse the issues in what was an otherwise ordinary workers’ compensation claim.

Background

Towles sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries that he claimed he had sustained to his right shoulder while working for the employer. Although the claim was initially denied, it was ultimately allowed for a right shoulder impingement and a right shoulder rotator cuff tear. The employer appealed that decision to an Ohio trial court.

Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Towles. Along with its verdict, the jury answered a series of interrogatories finding Towles had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the injuries to his right shoulder were a direct and proximate cause of the alleged injury at the employer and not a result of “natural deterioration,” as alleged by the employer.

Eggshell Head” Theory

The employer filed a motion for a new trial because the jury had been improperly instructed on an “eggshell” theory of medical causation. As noted by the appellate court, the theory is more commonly known as the “eggshell head” theory (although, of course, the doctrine is not limited to head injuries). It added that under the theory, which evolved in the context of preexisting injuries, if a defendant’s wrongful act causes injury, the defendant is fully liable for the resulting damage even though the injured plaintiff had a preexisting condition that made the consequences of the wrongful act more severe than they would have been for a plaintiff without a preexisting condition or injuries.

The employer here contended that the eggshell theory instruction to the jury was improper since there was no expert testimony that a preexisting condition made Towles more prone to his injury. The appellate court indicated, however, that the employer’s arguments were nothing more than “an attempt to confuse the issues in what is an otherwise ordinary workers’ compensation claim” [Opinion ¶ 14]. The court found that the trial court had properly posited to the jury the following interrogatory:

Were the injuries to Towles’ right shoulder caused by an injury that he suffered on May 1, 2016 while at MillerCoors or were Towles’ injuries the result of natural deterioration? [[Opinion ¶ 14].

Given that interrogatory, stressed the court, and considering the evidence presented at trial, the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury on the “eggshell skull” rule fairly and accurately stated the law applicable to the evidence presented at trial. The trial court’s decision to instruct the jury on the “eggshell skull” rule “properly notified the jury that the rule should be applied only if it found Towles’ injuries occurred on May 1, 2016 and not, as alleged by MillerCoors, the result of natural deterioration” [Opinion ¶ 14, emphasis by the court].

The appellate court indicated that it had completed a thorough review of the record and it found there was competent, credible evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding Towles had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he injured his right shoulder in the course of, and arising out of, his employment with MillerCoors on May 1, 2016, and that (2) there was proximate causal relationship between Towles’ injury and the harm or disability Towles’ sustained. While there may have been some conflicting testimony presented, the jury nevertheless found the injuries to Towles’ right shoulder were caused by the injury he suffered while working at MillerCoors on May 1, 2016. Given the fact that a reversal on manifest weight grounds was appropriate only under extraordinary circumstances, the court said there was no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict in the case.