Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. John Wayne, Plaintiff-Appellant, Brenda Sue Wayne, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. Steel Processing Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, 968 F.2d 1217 (6th Cir. 1992)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (June 26, 1992)

Docket number: 91-3992

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/wayne-brenda-sue-steel-processing-37471433
Id. vLex: VLEX-37471433

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Leila Hospital and Health Center, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Xonics Medical Systems, Inc.; Xonics, Inc., Defendants, Elscint Ltd.; Elscint, Inc.; Elscint Imaging, Inc., Defendants, Cross-Defendants-Appellees, National Surety Corporation, Defendant, Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee., 948 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1991)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

Before RYAN, BOGGS and BATCHELDER Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this matter, several former employees of defendant-appellee, Steel Processing Services, Inc. ("SPS"), filed workplace intentional tort claims against SPS grounded in the Ohio Supreme Court's decisions in Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 608, 433 N.E.2d 572, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 857 (1982), and Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 522 N.E.2d 489, 491-92 (1988). After allowing a period for discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for SPS.

This Court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment. Leila Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Xonics Med. Sys., Inc., 948 F.2d 271, 274 (6th Cir.1991). After reviewing the briefs and record in this matter, and considering the parties' oral argument, we conclude that for the reasons stated in its opinion, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment for SPS. In particular, it is plain from the record that the former employees have failed to present evidence to demonstrate what specific injuries they suffered or that any such injuries were caused by SPS's actions. Absent evidence of causation, the former employees' claims cannot survive SPS's motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.