Did Claim from Other Job Extend Deadline to File Against Spray Paint Manufacturer?

What Do You Think?

When a spouse dies from an occupational disease, the surviving spouse has one year to file a claim for death benefits. Prior to Sept. 28, 2021, that period (the statute of limitations) was two years. A recent case asks whether prior claims against other employers for the same injury can give the surviving spouse more time to file.

In that case, involving Accuspray, a manufacturer of spray paints, the decedent’s wife claimed that her husband died in November 2018 as a result of COPD and lung cancer that he contracted from his employment.

She filed a claim seeking death benefits from another employer in November 2019. The Industrial Commission denied that claim.  The wife then filed a claim against Accuspray in July 2021. That claim was denied because the wife failed to file it within two years of the death (the statute of limitations period under R.C. 4123.85 that was in effect at the time). 

The decedent’s wife appealed that decision, citing a different provision of the workers’ compensation statute. She pointed to R.C. 4123.84, which provides:

In all cases of injury or death, claims for compensation or benefits for the specific part or parts of the body injured shall be forever barred unless, within one year after the injury or death . . . [w]ritten or facsimile notice of death has been given to the commission or bureau.

She said her initial claim put the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation on notice that she would be filing claims against her husband’s former employers. That notice effectively pushed back the deadline for filing her claim against Accuspray, she argued.

Was the wife’s death benefits claim timely?

A. No. Her claim against the other employer didn’t change the fact that she had to file within two years.

B. Yes. Accuspray was on notice of her claim based on her filing against the other employer.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Foreback v. Accuspray Application Technologies, No. 114813 (Ohio Ct. App. 10/09/25), which found the wife’s claim was untimely.

Got statute of limitations questions about your state? Get Simply Research

The court pointed out that the wife’s claim involved an occupational disease. That meant that R.C. 4123.85 applied to it. She didn’t explain why she believed her claim was governed by R.C. 4123.84 or how the two provisions might interact to render her claim timely.

Further, R.C. 4123.84 applies to claims for injuries, which would involve a single employer. R.C. 4123.85, on the other hand, with its two-year statute of limitations,applied to occupational disease claims, such as this one, which often involve exposures from multiple employers. 

Here, the wife filed the claim against Accuspray two and half years after her husband’s death. Thus, it was barred by R.C. 4123.85.

The court affirmed the denial of the claim.

Share This Article: