Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christina Alessio, Petitioner v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court briefSep 1, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Blank Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinions and Orders

Order of the Supreme Court of Ohio

(April 11, 2023)...................................

Order of the Supreme Court of Ohio

Denying Motion for Reconsideration

(June 6, 2023)............................................

Journal Entry and Opinion of the

Court of Appeals of Ohio Eighth

Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga

(December 15, 2022).......................................

Journal Entry

(December 16, 2022)

13a

Journal Entry Granting Motion for

Summary Judgment in Favor of the

Defendant-Appellee, United Airlines, Inc.

(March 31, 2022)................................................ 15a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Case Documents

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of

Plaintiff-Appellant Christina Alessio

(January 19, 2023)........................................... 17a

Motion for Reconsideration of

Plaintiff-Appellant Christina Alessio

(April 17, 2023).................................................. 33a

Letter from (FAA) Federal Aviation

Administration (June 2, 2016)...................... 40a

Letter from (OSHA) U.S. Department of

Labor (September 19, 2016)........................... 41a

EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights

(April 18, 2017).................................................. 44a

Letter from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

(July 22, 2015)................................................... 46a

Letter from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

(May 25, 2017)................................................... 47a

Letter from Ohio Congresswoman

Marcia L. Fudge (July 31, 2015)................... 48a

Letter from Defendant-Appellee United

Airlines Inc., Response to Subpoena

(January 7, 2016).............................................. 50a

Letter from Plaintiff-Appellant

Christina Alessio to Executive Branch,

(DO J) Department of Justice

(March 1, 2018)............................................. 52a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Letter from Plaintiff-Appellant

Christina Alessio to Executive Branch,

(DOJ) Department of Justice

(November 13, 2018).....................................

58a

Letter from Plaintiff-Appellant

Christina Alessio to Executive Branch,

(DOJ) Department of Justice

(January 7, 2020)...........................................

63a

Letter from Christina Alessio to the

Legislative Branch, Ohio Senators and

Congresswomen (May 15, 2020)...............

69a

Letter from Christina Alessio to the

Legislative Branch, Ohio Senators and

Congresswomen (July 10, 2020)...............

73a

Alessio Petition for Rehearing in

Supreme Court, Excerpts

(December 19, 2019)......................................

80a

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Oral Argument Audio in Transcript

(November 16, 2022)...............................

87a

Transript of Oral Argument.............

90a

Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to

Defendants Motion for Summary

Judgment (February 2, 2022)...................

113a

Addendum In Opposition to Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment

(February 7, 2022).....................................

132a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Exhibits

EXHIBIT 3

Letter from Defendant-Appellee

Attorney on Appellant’s Request for

(IME) Independent Medical

Examination (December 2, 2020).........

137a

EXHIBIT 4

Quote from United Airlines CEO,

Scott Kirby on Vaccines......................

139a

EXHIBIT 6

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law

2.2 Employers’ Obligation...................

141a

EXHIBIT 7

VSSR Record of Proceedings

(May 21, 2021)..........................................

143a

EXHIBIT 8

FEDERAL LAW 49 U.S.C. 5124

“Notice to travelers”........... .................

147a

EXHIBIT 18

Definition of Chemical Weapon........

148a

EXHIBIT F

Irregular Operation Report #207207

(August 14, 2021).....................................

. 149a

EXHIBIT T

OSHA Safety and Health Concern

Submitted (August 24, 2021)................

153a

Docket Details

159a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

AMERICA, THE JURY Third Sequel

173a

CHAPTER ONE Ohio Industrial Commission

District Hearing, Transcript

(October 30, 2020)..............................

178a

CHAPTER TWO Ohio Industrial Commission

Staff Hearing, Transcript

(January 22, 2021)..............................

211a

CHAPTER THREE Petition for Rehearing,

Case No. 19-395 with Docket List

(December 19, 2019)...........................

251a

CHAPTER FOURConclusion and Photos.................

260a

CHAPTER FIVE - The Question....

265a

CHAPTER SIX - The Verdict........

266a

AMERICA, THE JURY Fourth Sequel

267a

CHAPTER ONE Ohio Industrial Commission

Staff Hearing, Transcript

VSSR (Violation of Specific

Safety Requirement)

(February 18, 2021)..............................

271a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

CHAPTER TWO Ohio Industrial Commission

Staff Hearing, Transcript

Reset VSSR (Violation of Specific

Safety Requirement)

(May 21, 2021)........................................

CHAPTER THREE - The Conclusion

CHAPTER FOUR - The Question.....

CHAPTER FIVE - The Verdict...........

AMERICA, THE JURY Fifth Sequel...

279a

310a

316a

317a

318a

CHAPTER ONE Six Clarifications and Corrections

Unable to Communicate in Staff Hearing:

America, The Jury - Third Sequel

322a

CHAPTER TWO Ohio Industrial Commission

District Hearing, Transcript

(March 5, 2021)....................................

CHAPTER THREE Ohio Industrial Commission

Staff Hearing, Transcript

(April 15, 2021)....................................

CHAPTER FOUR - Conclusion......

CHAPTER FIVE - The Question....

CHAPTER SIX - The Verdict.........

329a

364a

403a

418a

419a

App.la

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

(APRIL 11, 2023)

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

Case No. 2023-0072

Before: Sharon L. KENNEDY, Chief Justice.

ENTRY

Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memo

randa filed in this case, the court declines to accept

jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08

(B)(4).

(Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals; No. 111449)

/s/ Sharon L. Kennedy

Chief Justice

App.2a

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JUNE 6, 2023)

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

Case No. 2023-0072

Before: Sharon L. KENNEDY, Chief Justice.

RECONSIDERATION ENTRY

It is ordered by the court that the motion for

reconsideration in this case is denied.

(Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals; No. 111449)

Is/ Sharon L. Kennedy

Chief Justice

App.3a

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT,

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

(DECEMBER 15, 2022)

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 111449

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County

Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-21-949578

Before: Sean C. GALLAGHER, Administrative

Judge, Michelle J. SHEEHAN, J., and

Lisa B. FORBES, J.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

Judgment: Affirmed

Released and Journalized: December 15, 2022

App.4a

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:

{1 1} Appellant, Christina Alessio (“Alessio”), pro

se, appeals the judgment entry of the Cuyahoga County

Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judg

ment to appellee, United Airlines, Inc. (“United Air

lines”)- Because appellant’s claims are barred by res

judicata, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Procedural and Factual History

fl[ 2} On July 7, 2021, Alessio, acting pro se,

appealed to the court of common pleas from orders of

a staff hearing officer for the Ohio Industrial Com

mission (“the commission”) that denied her claim Nos.

20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187 and from which

the commission refused to hear an appeal. The staff

hearing officer determined each of those claims was

barred because the allegation raised had been previ

ously adjudicated in claim No. 19-202076, for which

all administrative remedies were exhausted.

A. The Commission Decisions on Claim Nos.

20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187

3} For each of claim Nos. 20-194183, 20-194185,

and 20-194187, Alessio filed a “First Report of an

Injury, Occupational Disease or Death” (“FROI-1”)

form with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

(“BWC”) with a signature date of October 1, 2020, which

alleged she sustained “inflammation/swelling to both

hands and wrists” as result of “chemical exposure in

aircraft cabin” while working as a flight attendant

for United Airlines. Each form alleged a specific date

of injury including October 6, 7, and 8, 2019, respec

tively. In orders issued on March 11, 2021, a district

hearing officer denied each claim “based upon the

App.5a

doctrine of res judicata” upon finding each claim had

been previously contested and “involves the same

parties and the same facts, circumstances, and subject

matter as the previously filed [BWC] Claim No. 19202076[J” which had been decided on the merits

following prior hearings that were held.

4} On April 22, 2021, a staff hearing officer

issued orders that affirmed the denial of claim Nos.

20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187. The staff hearing

officer observed that the earlier claim No. 19-202076

alleged a harmful exposure/inhalation of sprayed “jet

scent” chemical liquid air freshener in the course of

her employment as a flight attendant with United Air

lines over the time frame October 5, 2019, through

October 8, 2019, and that the current claims allege the

same exposure to chemicals during a specific day

included within the time frame previously addressed

by the commission. As to each of the current claims,

the staff hearing officer found in part that “the allega

tion in this claim has previously been ruled on in

Claim 19-202076,” “the Claimant has exhausted all

administrative remedies in Claim 19-202076,” and

“the subject matter and allegations in that former claim

are the same as the subject matter and allegations in

this docketed claim * * * » The staff hearing officer

determined claim Nos. 20-194183, 20-194185, and

20-194187 were barred and denied the claims. The

Ohio Industrial Commission refused to hear an appeal

from the staff hearing officer’s orders. Alessio then

appealed to the court of common pleas pursuant to

R.C. 4123.512(A).

App.6a

B. The Commission Decision on Prior Claim

No. 19-202076

{1 5} The previously filed claim No. 19-202076

was denied by a district hearing officer in an order

issued on November 3, 2020, and that order was

affirmed by a staff hearing officer in an order issued

on January 27, 2021. The staff hearing officer’s order

for claim No. 19-202076 noted that “the Claimant

had amended the application to allege a cumulative

trauma injury occurring over four days for the period

10/05/2019 through 10/08/2019.” Following a lengthy

hearing, the staff hearing officer “specifically dis

allowed” the requested conditions of “chemical exposure

/inhalation; bilateral wrist/hand/finger injury” upon

finding “the Claimant failed to sustain her burden”

of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that

“the above disallowed conditions or any other injury

or occupational disease developed in the course of or

arising out of her employment.” Claim No. 19-202076

was denied “in its entirety.” The commission refused

to hear an appeal in an order issued on February 12,

2021. No appeal was taken in the court of common

pleas with respect to this claim.

C. Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas

from Denial of Claim Nos. 20-194183, 20194185, 20-194187

6} On appeal from the denial of her claim Nos.

20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187, Alessio indicated

in her pro se complaint that she had “reported a

history of 23 Work Injuries from 2010 to 2020[.] Claims

reported due to and from, Inhalation Exposure of

Chemicals in the Aircraft Cabin with Defendant not

providing Daily Personal Protective Equipment - PRE

App.7a

was not provided, not allowed and/or not suggested by

Defendants to avoid any Injury and Illness” and that

all 23 claims had been denied by United Airlines and

disallowed by the commission. Alessio further alleged

that “Personal Protective Equipment - PPE - for Daily

Use, was finally Approved for the Aircraft Cabin, Sep

tember 5, 2020, per the Association of Flight Attendants

(AFA)” and that “[n]o Personal Protective Equipment

was provided by Defendant for daily use to avoid any

Injury/Illness from Chemical Substance Products in

Work Environment.” The answers filed by United

Airlines and the Administrator, Bureau of Workers’

Compensation included the affirmative defense of res

judicata.

{1 7} On February 7, 2022, United Airlines filed a

motion for summary judgment, claiming in part that

Alessio’s “Claim Nos. 20-194183, 20-194185, and 20194187 are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.”

United Airlines also presented arguments against the

merits of the claims. On March 31, 2022, the court of

common pleas granted the motion for summary judg

ment without opinion. Alessio timely filed this appeal.

II. Law and Analysis

{H 8} Initially, Alessio claims that her case was

not treated in a “fair, right and just manner” because

the trial court did not proceed with a telephone pre

trial conference that had been scheduled and did not

provide a detailed opinion in ruling on the motion for

summary judgment. The trial court’s docket reflects

that at the time of the case-management conference,

the court set a pretrial conference date following the

dispositive-motion deadline. Because the trial court’s

ruling on United Airlines’ motion for summary judg-

App.8a

ment was dispositive of the matter, the trial court was

not required to conduct any further proceedings. More

over, nothing in Civ.R. 56 requires a trial court to con

duct a pretrial conference prior to granting summary

judgment. See Giffen v. Meritor Automotive, 5th Dist.

Licking No. 98-CA-45, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5766, 4

(Nov. 3, 1998). Also, there is no requirement for a trial

court to provide reasons for its decision when ruling on

the motion for summary judgment and our de novo

review is without any deference to the trial court’s

decision. See Dean v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 106046, 2018-0hio-3042, 1 9, citing

Powers v. Ferro Corp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79383,

2002-0hio-2612, K 30.

{1 9} We review the trial court’s decision to grant

summary judgment de novo, and we also consider

whether the action is barred by res judicata de novo.

Manning v. FCA US, LLC, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-191144, 2020-0hio-706, t 18, citing Dayton v. State, 151

Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-0hio-6909, 87 N.E.3d 176, 1 12,

and Holbrook v. OhioHealth Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin

No. 14AP-507, 2015-Ohio-2354,113. “Res judicata oper

ates ‘to preclude the relitigation of a point of law or

fact that was at issue in a former action between the

same parties and was passed upon by a court of com

petent jurisdiction.’” State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus.

Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 649, 651, 687 N.E.2d 768

(1998), quoting Office of Consumers* Counsel v. Public

Util. Comm., 16 Ohio St.3d 9, 10, 475 N.E.2d 782

(1985). Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a valid,

final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all sub

sequent actions based upon any claim arising out of

the transaction or occurrence that was the subject of

the previous action.” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio

App.9a

St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). “Res judicata

promotes the principle of finality of judgments by re

quiring plaintiffs to present every possible ground for

relief in the first action.” Kirkhart v. Keiper, 101 Ohio

St.3d 377, 2004-0hio-1496, 805 N.E.2d 1089, H 5,

citing Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio

St.3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178 (1990).

(1 10} Generally, the doctrine of res judicata

applies to administrative proceedings before the

Industrial Commission and “a prior order by the com

mission can become res judicata in future proceedings

before the commission.” State ex rel. Tantarelli v.

Decapua Ents., 156 Ohio St.3d 258, 2019-Ohio-517,

125 N.E.3d 850, H 14, citing Kroger Co. at 651.1 The

party asserting that res judicata bars the action must

establish that “the claimant has asserted a second

‘identical workers’ compensation claimQ’ which ‘the

parties ★ ★ ★ had ample opportunity to litigate’ in a prior

proceeding; the issue was ‘conclusively decided in a

valid, final judgment on the merits, ’***.” Manning

at 1) 19, citing Marinkovic v. Diversified Inventory

Solution, Inc., 147 Ohio App.3d 497, 771 N.E.2d 291,

K 8 (9th Dist. 2002).

(U 11} In this matter, United Airlines argued, and

the staff hearing officer determined for each claim,

that Alessio was alleging a claim arising from the

same alleged exposure to chemicals during a specific

day that was included in the staff hearing officer’s final

order for claim No. 19-202076, in which Alessio had

alleged a cumulative trauma injury occurring over

1 This is not a case implicating the continuing jurisdiction of

the Ohio Industrial Commission under R.C. 4123.52(A), which

is limited. See Tantarelli at ^ 14-16.

App.lOa

the four-day period “10/05/2019 through 10/08/2019.”

Claim Nos. 20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187

allege that Alessio was injured by “chemical exposure

in aircraft cabin” that resulted in “inflammatory/

swelling to both hands and wrists” on October 6, 7, and

8, 2019, respectively. The prior claim No. 19-202076

was decided on the merits following a lengthy hearing,

with the staff hearing officer disallowing the claim

upon determining Alessio did not sustain her burden

of proof in demonstrating by a preponderance of the

evidence that the conditions of “chemical exposure/

inhalation as well as bilateral wrist/hand/finger injury”

or any other injury or occupational disease “devel

oped or occurred in the course or arising out of her

employment.” More specifically, the staff hearing officer

was “not persuaded that [Alessio] was injured due to

her alleged exposure/inhalation of ‘jet scent’ liquid air

freshener in the course of her employment as a flight

attendant with the named Employer over the period

of [10/05/2019 through 10/08/2019].” The commission

refused to hear an appeal on the prior claim No. 19202076, and Alessio did not appeal to the court of

common pleas.2

12} In arguing against application of res judi

cata, Alessio refers to language in a district hearing

officer order issued on May 4, 2018, on an earlier

claim, No. 15-859117, with an alleged injury date of

11/5/2015, wherein it was observed that “there has

not been an adjudication of the instant alleged date of

injury. Thus, the issue is not res judicata.” However,

it is the prior adjudication of claim No. 19-202076 that

2 The failure to timely appeal was fatal to that claim. See

Richardson v. Indus. Comm, of Ohio, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.

22797, 2009-Ohio-2548,1 25.

App.lla

implicates res judicata with respect to the current

claims. Although Alessio also appears to argue that

claim No. 19-202076 was allowed “on the VSSR” after

the claim had been denied, the subsequent proceedings

on which she relies do not support her claim. In the

commission order issued May 21, 2021, attached as an

exhibit to Alessio’s complaint, the staff hearing officer

found it was “without jurisdiction to address the

injured worker’s 10/5/2020 IC8-9 Application for VSSR

Award. This claim (19-202076) was denied in a

1/27/2021 Staff Hearing Officer order that was admin

istratively affirmed. The Injured Worker did not appeal

this decision to court.” Accordingly, the staff hearing

officer order issued on January 27, 2021, was a valid,

final judgment on that claim.

{f 13} At oral argument before this court, Alessio

offered a well-meaning and passionate concern about

airline safety for both employees and the traveling

public. While that concern is genuine, we are con

strained to follow the law that applies to this case.

{H 14} Our review of the record reflects that Alessio

asserted identical claims encompassed by her prior

claim No. 19-202076, that the parties had ample

opportunity to litigate the matter in the prior pro

ceeding, and that the issue was conclusively decided in

a valid, final decision on the merits. Upon our review,

we conclude that claim Nos. 20-194183, 20-194185,

and 20-194187 are barred by res judicata and affirm

the lower court’s decision to grant United Airlines’

motion for summary judgment. We are not persuaded

by any other argument presented by Alessio, and we do

not consider United Airlines’ arguments concerning

the sufficiency of the evidence to support her claims.

{H 15} Judgment affirmed.

App.l2a

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant

costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds

for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of

this court directing the common pleas court to carry

this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the

mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

Is/ Sean C. Gallagher

Administrative Judge

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.,

AND LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR

App.l3a

JOURNAL ENTRY

(DECEMBER 16, 2022)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No: CV-21-949578

Before: John P. O’DONNELL, Judge.

THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ENTERED ITS DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF

THIS CASE ON 12/15/2022, NO ACTION INCON

SISTENT WITH APPELLATE COURT JURISDIC

TION IS TO BE TAKEN IN THIS MATTER UNTIL

THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEAL TO THE

OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS EXPIRED UNDER

S.CTR. PRAC. R. 7.01. THIS ENTRY SPECIFICALLY

DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXECUTION ON A

JUDGMENT WHERE NO STAY OF EXECUTION

PENDING APPEAL IS IN EFFECT. IF APPROPRI

ATE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPELLATE PERIOD

EXPIRING, THE CASE MAY BE RETURNED AS

NECESSARY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO

App.l4a

THE DOCKET OF THE ORIGINATING COURT

BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. UNLESS AS

OTHERWISE AGREED UPON IN WRITING BY

THE PARTIES, THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE

OF RE-INSTATEMENT IS 01/30/2023.

THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE BRENDAN J

SHEEHAN.

/s/ Brendan J. Sheehan

Judge

12/16/2022

App.l5a

JOURNAL ENTRY

GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTAPPELLEE, UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

(MARCH 31, 2022)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff,

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No: CV-21-949578

Before: John P. O’DONNELL, Judge.

DEFENDANT UNITED AIRLINES, INC.’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED

1/14/2022, IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT ON THE

COMPLAINT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR

OF THE DEFENDANT AND AGAINST THE PLAIN

TIFF.

COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAIN

TIFF®.

PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF

COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDG-

App.l6a

MENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R.

5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE

DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL

PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE.

/s/ John P. O’Donnell

Judge Signature

03/31/2022

App.l7a

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

JURISDICTION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

(JANUARY 19, 2023)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 111449

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

JURISDICTION OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

Plaintiff-Appellant. Pro se

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. Unit #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd. for United Airlines, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713)

100 E. Broad Street, #2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

App.l8a

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Sectid$l

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS OF

GREAT INTEREST INVOLVING A

SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

WITH RESPECT TO THE AIR-TRAVELING

PUBLIC’S SAFETY AND HEALTH.

The Substantial Constitutional Question:

Respectfully, is the Appellee in compliance with

Constitutional Statute, Title 49 United States Code

(U.S.C.) 5124, using Chemical Substance Products

inside the Aircraft Cabin?

With respect, on April 18, 2017, the Equal Em

ployment Opportunity Commission handed the Plain

tiff-Appellant Pro se, a ‘Notice of Rights” Letter. The

letter states in part:

“The EEOC issues the following determina

tion: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC

is unable to conclude that the information

obtained establishes violations of the statutes.

This does not certify that the respondent is

in compliance with the statutes

App.l9a

STATEMENT OF THIS CASE AND FACT

Respectfully, the United States Constitution is

to Protect the People.

The Constitution of the United States of America,

is to Protect the People on the ground and in the air.

Most recent document to support acceptance of

Case No. 111449, is the Audio Oral Argument held at

the Court of Appeals on November 16, 2022, communi

cating 5 Key Points of Law that Appellant, through

discovery, believes the Appellee violated.

RESPECTFUL ARGUMENT IN

SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW:

Proposition Law No. I:

Title 49 U.S.C. 5124.

Proposition Law No, II:

Ohio BWC Law, Chapter 2.2 Employers Obligation.

Proposition Law No. Ill:

3 Ohio Administrative Codes.

Proposition Law No. IV:

Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR).

Proposition Law No. V:

OSHA 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200.

Proposition Law No. I:

Title 49 United States Code 5124, forbids

hazard materials onboard the aircraft. Respectfully,

there is a placard located at every gate in every

airport terminal communicating this Law in detail

with examples of forbidden items. In specific, though

not limited to: Household Cleaners and Poisons.

App.20a

Appellee uses Chemical Substance Products inside

the Aircraft Cabin, Ingredients withheld and not

made available. Both Appellant and Appellee agree:

SAFETY IS TOP PRIORITY, except when it comes to

Chemical Inhalation Exposure in the Aircraft Cabin.

Respectfully, a list of all Product Names with

Safety Data Sheets, including Ingredients to the Chem

ical Substances used inside all the Aircraft Cabins for

Cleaning, Sanitizing, Disinfecting and Air-Freshening

are presently not provided to, or known to the AirTraveler for their Safety and Health awareness. 100%

Transparency is of the upmost importance for the

Air-Traveler’s knowledge, to avoid any and all injury

/illness. On September 19, 2019, Appellant respect

fully filed a Petition with an Appendix to the Supreme

Court of the United States (SCOTUS: Case No. 19395), with the hope that the case would be accepted

based on the merits of National and Global Signif

icance to the Air-Traveling Public’s Safety and Health,

and the fact that the Substantial Constitutional

Question needed answered that the EEOC could not

confirm. Respectfully, the case was denied to be heard

at the Supreme Court of the United States on Janu

ary 21, 2020, the same day that the CDC confirms

the first case of the Coronavirus (COVID-19), in the

United States of America. The very beginning of a

Global Pandemic.

Some of the Onboard Aircraft Cabin Chemical

Substance Products have the same symptoms/side

effects of COVID-19. Respectfully, we need 100% Trans

parency. Respectfully, based on the above reasons

alone, Appellant believes this case has the proper,

sufficient and meaningful merits to be accepted and

heard in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

App.21a

Proposition Law II:

Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation (BWC)

Law, Chapter 2.2 Employers Obligation, Employer’s

Obligation to the Employee, is to protect. Respectfully,

the Appellee lacked reasonable care and breached a

Legal Duty to protect the Appellant with Personal

Protective Equipment (PPE) from Chemical Inhalation

Exposure.

All 23 Chemical Inhalation Exposure Work Injury

Claims (No PPE furnished) endured:

Substantial Aggravation, Irritation and Harm

to Appellant's Rheumatoid Arthritis resulting

in required Medical Attention, Medical Care

and Medical Treatment.

Proposition Law III:

3 Ohio Administrative Codes (OAC)

Personal Protective Equipment (PPEJJ/Rule 4123:1-5-17.

Applicability due to Injury: Rule 3745-104-05.

Additional award by reason of Specific Safety Require

ments: Rule 4121-3-20.

For clarification, Appellant believes 20 of the 23

Claims may have been barred by res judicata, and

final judgment made is “denied”, though Appellant

believes Laws were broken by the Appellee on all 23

Claims, by not furnishing PPE. Todays present 3

Claims in this case being heard, Appellant believes,

are not barred by res judicata as the Appellant under

stands a Record of Proceedings respectfully submit

ted, stating in part:

App.22a

“As a preliminary matter, the District Hearing

Officer finds that the Industrial Commission

has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue

noticed for today’s hearing. Although Claim

ant has filed numerous claim applications

against the employer of record, there has not

been an adjudication of the instant alleged

date of injury. Thus, the issue is not res judi

cata. ”

For the record, Claim No. 19-202076, Date of

Injury: October 5, 2019, Record of Proceedings for

Issue: VSSR-Application Specific Enough, provides

an “Interlocutory Continuance Order” for the Staff

Hearing to be reset, and the Staff Hearing Officer

also noted in part:

“the need for federal regulations regarding

air quality and use of cleaning products in

the airplanes for the safety/good of the

airlines workers and the public at large. ”

The VSSR Staff Hearing was reset and heard at the

Ohio Industrial Commission for a Violation of a Spe

cific Safety Requirement (VSSR), unfortunately, only

after the 60 days to file an appeal had expired. The

VSSR Staff Hearing that was reset for Work Injury

Claim No. 19-202076, was allowed, though the claim

had already been denied. With this, Appellant believes

the present 3 Claims yet to be adjudicated, should

then therefore, be held into account and allowed the

additional award for VSSR.

Proposition Law IV:

Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR).

App.23a

Respectfully, Appellee failed to protect Appellant

to Chemical Inhalation Exposure by not furnishing

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), to avoid injury.

For the record, the present 3 Claims were dis

missed without prejudice to be heard at a later date,

and those are the claim numbers that begin with the

year “20”, rather than “19”, the original year of the

date of injury.

October 5, 2019, Claim No. 19-202076

October 6, 2019, Claim No. 20-194183

October 7, 2019, Claim No. 20-194185

October 8, 2019, Claim No. 20-194187

Proposition Law V:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, is a Worker’s Right to a

Safe and Healthy Workplace Environment.

Respectfully, how is Exposure to Chemical Sub

stance Products all day in the Workplace Environment

Safe and Healthy, especially when the Products have

Substances withheld, not 100% Transparent and PPE,

not furnished by the Appellee?

THE HISTORY AND FACTS OF THIS CASE

1. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se, Christina Alessio,

is a Flight Attendant, for the Appellee, United Airlines,

hired in 1998 in great health.

Job Duty: To ensure a Safe Environment for

the Air-Traveling Public.

App.24a

2. Appellant was diagnosed with Rheumatoid

Arthritis in 2003.

Inflammation of the Joints.

3. The Appellant’s request for an Independent

Medical Examination (IME) with the Appellee’s Medical

Doctor of choice, continues to be denied.

4. 23 Work Injury Claims have been filed with

the Ohio BWC from 2010 to 2019 due to Chemical

Inhalation Exposure with No Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE), furnished by the Appellee.

Respectfully, all 23 Work Injury Claims from

Chemical Inhalation Exposure in the Aircraft Cabin,

were heard and denied at the Ohio Industrial Com

mission. Although, all 23 Work Injuries were denied,

the Appellant respectfully believes through discovery,

that the Appellee is in violation of the Proposition Laws.

Respectfully, Appellee violated the Law and

breach a Legal Duty of Responsibility to protect

Appellant from Chemical Inhalation Exposure by not

furnishing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Respectfully, a lack of reasonable care whether inten

tional or otherwise. With a Job Duty, the Appellant

respectfully believes this is gross negligence to the

Air-Traveling Public, by not being 100% Transparent

to the Chemicals Exposed inside the Aircraft Cabin.

Respectfully, as of today, the Appellee is not

100% Transparent to the Chemical Substance Products

used for Cleaning, Disinfecting, Sanitizing and AirFreshening, of which Air-Travelers are being exposed

to inside the Aircraft Cabin.

App.25a

In specific, Appellee is not providing 100% Trans

parency to the Aircraft Cabin Product Names with

all Ingredients and Safety Data Sheets.

100% Transparency to the Appellee’s Chemical

exposure in the Aircraft Cabin, is being respectfully

requested for the Safety and Health of the AirTraveling Public.

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

was not furnished by Appellee to Appellant:

5. February 20, 2003, the beginning of Appellant’s

diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

6. June 17, 2010, written statement from Keith

G. Novak, MD.

“The above patient was seen in the office

5/2/10 and diagnosed with pharyngitis. The

symptoms began after exposure to chemicals

at her work, therefore the diagnosis and

symptoms do appear related to her job

injury/exposure.”

7. Written statement from Keith G. Novak, MD.

“The above patient was seen today in office.

Has complaints of sore throat, irritation

from cleaning chemical exposure at work.

Advised not to fly due to above until

symptoms resolve, and/or seen by ENT, or 2

weeks, whichever is sooner. ”

8. April 11, 2014, written statement from M

Vielhaber MD. In part:

‘Work up is being hampered because employer

is not furnishing me with either 1) ingredient

App.26a

list of suspect item or 2) suspect item for

direct patch testing. ”

9. May 23, 2014, email from University Hospital

Dermatology Department. In part:

“Celeste and Frangrance vendors are not

willing to provide us with the actual made

up components that would be safe to apply for

patch testing at this time. ”

(Ingredients are a Trade Secret and withheld

from the Public)

10. May 23, 2014, written statement from Eli

Silver, MD. In part:

“I plan to undertake testing Ms. Alessio in

my Allergy Immunology Clinic at Case

Western Reserve Medical Center. The aim of

the test would be to objectively document her

adverse reaction to the environmental

ambience products used for cleaning and

maintenance of the airplane cabin and

lavatory“My subjective observations along

with objective photographs and jointcircumference measurement will be used to

establish the association between the exposure

and the flare of Ms. Alessio’s arthritis. One

would expect to see redness, swelling, and

increased circumference of the joints when

Ms. Alessio develops a hypersensitivity reac

tion to the chemicals in question. ”

11. June 11, 2014, written statement from Eli

Silver, MD. In part:

“The joint circumference had increased (0.250.75mm)”

App.27a

12. July 15, 2014, written statement from

Rheumatologist, Raymond S Hong, MD.

“Based on Dr. Eli Silver’s June 11, 2014

Ambient Exposure Challenge that objectively

demonstrated joint swelling in MCP and

PIP joints of fingers on both hands it is prob

able that exposure to the tested products

amplified Christina M Alessio’s Rheumatoid

Arthritis symptom ofjoint swelling.”

13. November 10, 2015, written statement from

Occupational Medicine, Jeff Kirschman, MD. In part,

“swelling of B hands with rash over B hands

upon exposure to chemicals in workplace

14. October 8, 2019, Appellee’s Airport Medical

Clinic. In part,

‘Diagnoses: Inhalation exposure Z77.098”

15. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), was

not furnished by Appellee for Appellant, to avoid

Substantial Aggravation to Rheumatoid Arthritis from

Chemical Inhalation Exposure, requiring to see Medical

Attention, Medical Care and Medical Treatment.

Since Coronavirus (COVID-19), PPE is now furnished

by Appellee and there have been no more injuries.

16. Last visit with Rheumatologist was February

6, 2020.

17. A total of 13, Court Reported Transcripts of

Evidence (Public Record and respectfully available in

self published books), providing quotations of docu

ments/letters to our 3 Government Branches, Ohio

Governor and Medical Doctor statements, have been

respectfully submitted to the Lower Courts for insight,

App.28a

clarity and understanding. Respectfully, up to and

including at least 160 times Appellant communicates

Air-Travel Safety and Health concerns, using the

following words: Protect, Protection, Protective Mea

sures or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

With respect, had the Appellee provided appro

priate PPE to Chemical Inhalation Exposure, there

would have been no injury. Appellant referenced the

“Index on all Transcripts” for the words: Protect, Pro

tected, Protection, Protective and PPE.

18. November 16, 2022, Appellant’s respectful

request for an Oral Argument was held and recorded

for Public Record at the Court of Appeals. The Appel

lant’s Prayer for Relief was respectfully requested to be

decided upon at the discretion of the court, with a

reference to Pagination of Record-Docket Entry No.

1, Exhibit L, pages 1-47. The Credible, Medical Evi

dence.

Respectfully, this case just isn’t about the Appel

lant, it’s about We: WE THE PEOPLE. Before the

Eighth District Court of Appeals on November 16,

2022, during the Oral Argument, the Most Honorable

Judge Michelle J. Sheehan asked me, the Appellant:

“So when I read your appeal, your appeal

says: I'm upset because they cancelled a pre

trial and didn't give an opinion-a written

opinion.

And 1just wanted to kind of clarify that. What

exactly are you asking us today? What do

you want us to do?”

Respectfully, Appellant’s response was 100%

Transparency to all the Names of Products used

App.29a

inside the Aircraft Cabin for Cleaning, Disinfecting,

Sanitizing and Air-Freshening with Safety Data Sheets

to be made 100% Transparent, so in this Environment

it is proven to be Safe, not just for the Flight

Attendants and the Pilots, but for the Customers that

we are responsible for.

Respectfully, with the “Memorandum in Support

of Jurisdiction”, Appellant is also requesting Account

ability to the Chemical Air-Freshener with Substances

that state on the Safety Data Sheet: Not Applicable.

Respectfully, Accountability where Laws were

violated.

With great respect, it seems that the Appellee

and Lower Courts simply want to just end this case.

Respectfully, with the discovery of Laws and

with the Facts. Appellant believes the Laws and

Facts overrule, on the present 3 Claims respectfully,

and not res judicata. Appellant believes Laws have

been Broken and Violated. Respectfully, the Appellant

believes this Case should not be decided upon an

Opinion, rather respectfully, on the Laws and Facts

of this Case. With the upmost respect, Appellee

Violated the Law with the failure to Protect. Respect

fully, is this an example of “Consciousness of Guilt”.

Respectfully, is Appellee being Negligent or have

some Intent?

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not

provided by the Appellee to the Appellant to avoid

Chemical Inhalation Exposure on all 23 Work Injury

Claims. that Substantially Aggravated Appellant’s

Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease in both hands and

wrists requiring to seek Medical Attention, Care and

App.30a

Treatment. Although, res judicata has been applied

to 20 Claims not Appealed to the Court of Common

Pleas, todays present 3 Claims continue to be appealed

with discovery. The Facts are the Facts and the Law

is the Law. Respectfully, it is clear Appellee violated

the Law by breaching a Legal Duty, with the Fact

that PPE was not furnished to avoid Chemical Inhala

tion Exposure, that Substantially Aggravated Appel

lant’s Rheumatoid Arthritis, having to seek Medical

Attention, Medical Care and Medical Treatment.

The Chemical Air-Freshener in the Aircraft Cabin

today still states Substances: Not Applicable, on the

Safety Data Sheet.

How can this be?

Appellant is respectfully requesting for Appellee

to be 100% Transparent and Accountable to the

Chemical Substance Products used inside the Aircraft

Cabin, for the Air-Traveling Public’s Safety and Health.

With great respect, the Appellant believes products

used to Clean, Sanitize, Disinfect and Air-Freshen the

Aircraft Cabin should be made transparent, no secrets,

with complete list of ingredients made available for a

better Air-Quality Environment. With great respect,

the Question now rests in your hands, do you?

Substantial Constitutional Question:

Respectfully, to Protect the People, is the Appellee

in compliance with Constitutional Statute, Title 49

United States Code (U.S.C.) 5124, using Chemical

Substance Products inside the Aircraft Cabin?

App.31a

CONCLUSION

To the very best of the Appellant’s ability, the

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction is accurate

and true. With great respect and for reasons outlined

above, please accept Appellant’s Notice of Appeal to

have this case heard in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff, Appellant-Pro se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CV-22-111449

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the Plaintiff-Appellant Pro

se, is personally hand delivering the filing Caption:

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURIS

DICTION with the Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of

the Clerk, located at 65 South Front Street, 8th Floor,

Columbus, Ohio, 43215-3431.

Respectfully, on the same day 19th of January,

2023, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se, USPS Priority Mailed

a copy to each of the Defendants, respectfully listed

below.

App.32a

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd. for United Airlines, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713) Note: Only appearance

at recorded Oral Argument 11/16/2022.

Melissa A. Ebel (0087826), Lindsey K Self (0099647)

100 E. Broad Street, #2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 564-1445

Fax: (614)280-1777

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Note: No appearance at recorded Oral Argument

11/16/2022.

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Section

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Telephone: 216-777-8025

Fax: 866-467-3572

Is/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se),

(330)-338-7052

United Airlines - Flight Attendant

Date: 1/19-2023

App.33a

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CHRISTINA ALESSIO

(APRIL 17, 2023)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Case No. 2023-0072

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

Plaintiff-Appellant. Pro se

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. Unit #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd. for United Airlines, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713)

100 E. Broad Street, Suite 2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

App.34a

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Section

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

APPELLANT CHRISTINA ALESSIO

The Appellant is respectfully requesting the

Supreme Court of Ohio to reconsider the decline to

accept the Jurisdiction of Appeal, pursuant to S.Ct.

Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4), and respectfully reverse the deci

sion in favor of the Appellant, based on the dis

concerting specificities of S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4)(a)(b).

The Supreme Court Rules of Practice as the

Appellant knows them regarding the Decision on

Jurisdiction: 7.08 (B)(4)(a): The appeal does not involve

a substantial constitutional question and should be

dismissed; (b) The appeal does not involve a question

of great general or public interest.

Respectfully, the Appellant whole heartedly

believes this case greatly does involve Ohio Substantial

Constitution Questions, for the greater good as well

as, this case involves important questions of great

general/public interest with respect to Air Travel

Safety.

App.35a

Respectful Ohio Constitutional Law questions of

Interest:

Article I: Bill of Rights.

Article I, Section I: Inalienable Rights. Do

Ohioans have inalienable rights to seek safety?

Article I, Section 11: Freedom of Speech. Do

Ohioans have the ability to due process in the courts,

with freedom of speech?

Article I, Section 20: Powers reserved to the

People. Is the power reserved to the People or to the

Government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial, who

all take an oath to work For the People?

Article IV: Judicial(B)(2) The Supreme Court

shall have appellate jurisdiction as follows: (a) In

appeals from the court of appeals as a matter of right

in the following: (i) Cases originating in the court of

appeals; (iii) Cases involving questions arising under

constitution of the United States or of this state, (d)

Such revisory jurisdiction of the proceedings of

administrative officers or agencies as may be conferred

by law; (e) In cases of public or great general interest,

the Supreme Court may direct any court of appeals

to certify its record to the Supreme Court, and may

review and affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment of

the court of appeals.

Article XIII, Section I: Special acts conferring

corporate powers; prohibited.

The General Assembly shall pass no special act

conferring corporate powers.

App.36a

Respectful United States Constitution Law

Article V of the Bill of Rights, communicates

in laymen words: An attack against one is an attack

against all. Due to the Appellant’s unique and

particular work environment (the Aircraft Cabin)

consider the Appellant the canary in the mine, (instead

rather in the air) with a job duty and responsibility

to ensure a safe environment. As well as and in addi

tion to, the Appellee’s commitment that “Safety is

Top Priority”. This commitment statement from the

Appellee isn’t just for the Appellant, it is for all of the

Air-Traveling Public. To this very day the Appellant

cannot receive and is denied an Independent Medical

Examination from the Appellee, to Chemical Inhalation

Exposure in the Aircraft Cabin who has been injured

23 times before Personal Protective Equipment was

provided-please share what this is saying about the

Appellee, when the Appellant is responsible for Appel

lee’s Customers safety? There is no transparency to

Protect the People.

Unfortunately as of today, the Appellee is not

providing 100% Transparency to the Public Air Traveler

of the Chemical Substance Products (by Product

Name with Safety Data Sheets) to prove and ensure

it’s safety to travel by air, inhaling all these chemical

substances for hours.

A simple request to follow for the Safety and

Health of all Air-Travelers, heard said by our beloved

former President Ronald Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”

The simple request is 100% Transparency to all

the Products used inside the Aircraft Cabin for

Cleaning, Disinfecting, Sanitizing and Air-Freshening,

App.37a

with Safety Data Sheets available for all who fly for

the sake of the Public’s Safety and Health.

To further support the Reconsideration of the

Jurisdiction Memoranda decision in favor of the

Appellant, it is written in Appellant’s Notice of Appeal

respectfully submitted in 2023, on the 19th of Janu

ary, a total of 5 laws Appellant believes Appellee

clearly breached a legal duty (no Personal Protective

Equipment provided) and in some areas possibly still

is, in violation of the law.

Respectfully, all matter of facts presented in this

case are of sreat public interest and safety such as,

Chemical Substances with Trade Secret Ingredients

used inside the Aircraft Cabin.

And at most present, the Appellant found no Rule

not to allow an attachment with Appellant’s Motion

for Reconsideration. Respectfully, the Appellant is

submitting the following in keeping the issue of the

Air-Traveling Public’s Safety and Health in mind,

which Appellant believes, is of the most greatest

interest for all who fly.

FAA response letter.

OSHA response letter.

EEOC Notice of Rights letter.

Ohio Senator’s response letter.

Congresswoman’s response letter.

Appellee’s letter on Aircraft Cabin Product

Ingredients.

Notarized letters to both the Executive and

Legislative Branches.

App.38a

Supreme Court of the United States, Case

No. 19-395, Petition for Rehearing.

Please help the Appellant Protect the Air-Travel

ing Public. Thank you for your reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Case No. 2023-0072

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the Plaintiff-Appellant Pro

se, is having delivered the filing Caption: MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION, to the Supreme Court of

Ohio, Office of the Clerk, located at 65 South Front

Street, 8th Floor, Columbus, Ohio, 43215-3431, by

USPS Overnight Priority Mail.

Respectfully, on the same day 13th of April,

2023, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se, is having delivered

a copy to each of the Defendants, respectfully listed

below, by USPS Priority Mail.

App.39a

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd. for United Airlines, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713)

Melissa A. Ebel (0087826), Lindsey K. Self (0099647)

100 E. Broad Street, #2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 564-1445

Fax: (614)280-1777

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Section

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Telephone: 216-777-8025

Fax: 866-467-3572

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se),

(330)-338-7052

United Airlines - Flight Attendant

Date: April 13, 2023

App.40a

LETTER FROM (FAA) FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

(JUNE 2, 2016)

Federal Aviation Administration

To: John Patterson

Company: Senator Sherrod Brown

Phone: (216) 522-7272

Fax: (216) 522-2239

From: Keisha Rene Dyson

Title: Program and Management Analyst

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is in

receipt of your letter dated November 12, 2015 on

behalf of Christina Alessio regarding hazardous

materials aboard aircraft and work injuries due to

hazardous materials.

Unfortunately, this is not an FAA issue. In order

to ensure that your concerns are addressed, I am

forwarding your inquiry to the appropriate agency/office

at the following address:

U.S. Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and

Health Administration

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room Number N3626

Washington, DC 20210

I am confident you will receive a prompt response

to your inquiry.

If I can be of further assistance, please call me

at the above telephone number.

App.41a

LETTER FROM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

(SEPTEMBER 19, 2016)

U.S. Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

230 South Dearborn Street, Room 3244

Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 353-2220

The Honorable Sherrod Brown

United States Senate

801 West Superior Ave., Suite 1400

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Senator Brown:

Your letter initially sent to the Federal Aviation

Administration’s Ms. Holly Harris, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs

was forwarded to the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) for a response. Your original

letter provided correspondence from your constituent

Ms. Christina Alessio of Bath, Ohio. Ms. Alessio, a

United Airlines, Inc. (United) flight attendant, is con

cerned as to the laws forbidding carrying hazardous

materials aboard aircraft and how this is reconciled

with the use of cleaners and air freshener products

that may contain harmful chemicals or irritants

onboard commercial aircraft. Please excuse the delay

in the response.

As you may know, OSHA has limited authority

over the working conditions of cabin crew members

while they are onboard aircraft in operation. Under

this limited authority, a few of OSHA’s standards

may be applied, including the Hazard Communication

App.42a

Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, to the working

conditions of cabin crew members (but not flight deck

crew) on aircraft in operation. While OSHA does not

have a standard that regulates general indoor air

quality, workers potentially exposed to cleaning or

air freshener products that were used in the aircraft

in a duration and frequency more than what a typical

consumer would use the cleaning or air freshener pro

ducts, and thus exposed to a potential health hazard,

must be included in their employer’s hazard commu

nication program. The employer’s hazard communi

cation program must include maintaining and making

available safety data sheets, training employees on

the hazards of the chemicals to which they are actu

ally or potentially exposed, as well as identifying any

appropriate protective measures, such as gloves for

hand protection.

OSHA’s Cleveland Area Office has previously

reached out to Ms. Alessio to discuss her concerns

related to her injury claims. OSHA also reviewed

United Airline’s response to a health and safety com

plaint which was handled by our phone/fax process,

safety data sheets, and the medical opinion from her

physician. From a review of the materials presented

to OSHA, we could neither substantiate nor disprove

whether her potential exposures to the listed producttypes caused or aggravated her health concerns. In

addition, OSHA does not have a generic medical sur

veillance standard, and therefore, cannot require

that her employer provide her with an “independent

medical examination.” OSHA’s medical surveillance

requirements are contained in its substance-specific

health standards, such as benzene, cadmium, and

formaldehyde.

App.43a

Ms. Alessio’s employer, United, remains respon

sible for providing a safe and healthy working environ

ment for its workers, and the need to take reasonable

steps to find safer alternative products if necessary.

With regard to Ms. Alessio’s concerns relating to her

injury claims, these are outside of OSHA’s jurisdiction

and would need to be addressed by the Ohio Industrial

Commission.

OSHA will now consider this matter closed.

Thank you for your interest in safety and health.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ken Nishivama Atha

Regional Administrator

cc: Howard Eberts Area Director,

Cleveland Area Office

CCU #806339

App.44a

EEOC DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

(APRIL 18, 2017)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Christina M. Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, OH 44210

From

Cleveland Field Office

EEOC, AJC Fed Bldg

1240 E. 9th St., Suite 3001

Cleveland, OH 44199

EEOC Charge No. 532-2015-01733

EEOC Representative Denise DeGennaro, Investigator

Telephone No. (216) 522-4786

THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS

CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

The EEOC issues the following determination

Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable

to conclude that the information obtained estab

lishes violations of the statutes. This does not

certify that the respondent is in compliance with

the Statutes. No finding is made as to any other

issues that might be construed as having been

raised by this charge.

App.45a

NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS

Title VII, the American with Disabilities Act,

the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will

be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to

sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit

against the respondent(s) under federal law based on

this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit

must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of

this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge

will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a

claim under state law may be different.)

Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in

federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for will

ful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment.

This means that backpay due for any violations that

occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file

suit may not be collectable.

On behalf of the Commission

Is/ Cheryl Mabry

Director

Date Mailed: April 18, 2017

Cc: Megan Detzner

Senior Staff Representative

UNITED AIRLINES

1200 E Algonquin Rd

Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

App.46a

LETTER FROM

OHIO SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

(JULY 22, 2015)

Subject: Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown

From: Sherrod Brown

(Senator_Brown@brown.senate.gov)

To: tinaalessio@yahoo.com

Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:12 PM

Dear Ms. Alessio:

Thank you for getting in touch with my office

regarding hazardous materials used in cleaning

supplies upon commercial flights. I appreciate your

bringing this issue to my attention.

I have passed your concerns along to the legislative

assistant in my office who monitors transportation

and health issues. I will keep your thoughts in mind

should this issue come before the Senate.

If you require any other assistance, please call

my office at 202-224-2315. Thank you again for being

in touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

App.47a

LETTER FROM

OHIO SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

(MAY 25, 2017)

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-3505

Sherrod Brown, Ohio

Committees:

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Finance

Veterans’ Affairs

Ms. Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd., #:589

Bath, OH 44210

Dear Ms. Alessio:

Your concerns were forwarded to the Federal

Aviation Administration and the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration and both agencies have

responded. Copies of those letters are attached. You

may wish to contact an attorney to determine if there

is a legal avenue within a court of law by which you

may further address these concerns.

Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you

are experiencing difficulties with any other federal

matter.

Sincerely,

Office of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown

App.48a

LETTER FROM OHIO CONGRESSWOMAN

MARCIA L. FUDGE

(JULY 31, 2015)

Subject: Response from Marcia’ L. Fudge

From: Rep. Marcia L. Fudge

(ohll-wyr@mail.house.gov)

To: tinaalessio@yahoo.com

Date: Friday, July 31, 2015 9:49 AM

Tina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd #589

Bath, OH 44210-5367

Dear Tina Alessio,

Thank you for contacting me to concerning the

presence of hazardous materials on airlines. As your

Representative, your thoughts are important to me,

and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your

concerns about this issue.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has

implemented a program that allows airlines to

voluntarily admit when violations of the Hazardous

Materials Regulations (HMR) occur. Both US airlines

and foreign airlines that operate in the US certified

under 14 CFR parts 119 and 129 respectively have

the option to participate. Under this program airlines

may voluntarily disclose when they have not complied

with hazardous materials standards—without risk of

punishment—and the FAA uses that data to prevent

more non-compliance. The FAA then helps that airline

to correct violations providing guidance, oversight,

and support.

App.49a

As your Representative, rest assured, as legislation

related to hazardous materials on airlines is considered

by Congress I will be sure to keep your thoughts in

mind.

Your needs and concerns are important to me,

and I thank you again for taking an active role in the

legislative process. Democracy works best when we stay

in touch, so I invite you to sign-up for email updates

at fudge.congressnewsletter.net. You can also get

late-breaking news at facebook.com/RepMarciaLFudge

and twitter.com/RepMarciaFudge.

If you should need any additional information or

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my D.C.

office at (202) 225-7032.

Sincerely,

Is/ Marcia L. Fudge

Member of Congress

App.50a

LETTER FROM

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE UNITED AIRLINES

INC., RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA

(JANUARY 7, 2016)

Sent Via Hand-Deliverv

Thomas M. Carolin

Industrial Commission-Akron Service Office

161 South High Street, Suite 301

Akron OH 44308

Re: Claimant: Christina Alessio

Employer: United Airlines, Inc.

Claim No.: 15-855426

Dear Mr. Carolin:

Please consider this letter and enclosures as

United’s responses to the subpoena issued by the

Industrial Commission dated December 4, 2015.

1. No flight attendant work environment health

survey took place in 2014 or 2015, and therefore

United has no documents to produce which are

responsive to this request.

2. Enclosed please find copies of the irregular

operations reports either submitted by Christina

Alessio or mentioning Christina Alessio for 2014 and

2015. (Bates labeled 1 through 124)

3. Material Safety Data Sheets for flight fresh

deodorant disc, jet scent pump spray, #3 sanitizer

cleaner, pearled foaming hand soap, philosophy foaming

hand soap, antibacterial hand soap with Triclosan.

(Bates labeled 125 through 154)

App.51a

4. Please be advised that United Airlines does not

manufacture any of the cleaning products in ques

tion, and therefore does not have a list of ingredients

responsive to Question No. 4. On April 22, 2014, Ms.

Alessio was informed by her supervisor that Ms.

Alessio, or her doctor, could obtain this information

directly from the manufacturer. A copy of the super

visor’s April 22, 2014 email to Tina Alessio is

enclosed. (Bates labeled 155 through 156)

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Is/ Dave Rickert

DM/tms

App.52a

LETTER FROM PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO TO EXECUTIVE

BRANCH, (DOJ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(MARCH 1, 2018)

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20530

RE: Federal Law: 49 U.S.C. 5124, Compliance with

Commercial Airlines

To our most Honorable Leaders of the United States

of America

Honorable Attorney General,

Mr. Jeff Sessions

Honorable Director of the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, Mr. Christopher Wray

Honorable Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Mr. Scott Pruitt

Honorable Secretary of Transportation,

Ms. Elaine Chao

Honorable Secretary of Health and

Human Services, Mr. Alex Azar

Dear Public Servant Leaders of the United States of

America.

This letter comes to you with care, concern and

kindness with great respect to the Commercial AirTraveling Public Health and Safety: Air-Qualitv.

Respectfully, it has been brought to my attention

on April 18, 2017, that the Equal Employment Oppor

tunity Commission concluded that they could not

App.53a

certify that my Employer is in compliance with the

statues.

With great respect to United Airlines (my

Employer), and the Health and Safety with the Global

Air-Traveling Public, I respectfully, had to file a case

with the Federal Court for verification and confirma

tion that in fact, my Employer is certified and 100

percent in compliance with the statues: Federal Law,

49 U.S.C. 5124.

With respect, the following documents are being

provided for thoughtful review to give you insight

and clarity as to: Why are “chemical” air fresheners

and “chemical” cleaning products being used in this

particular and unique environment, with no govern

ment stamp of approval or transparency with assurance

to be Safe and Healthy for breathing, with respect to

all Crew Members and all Customers?

Federal Aviation Administration letter

Occupational Safety and Health Adminis

tration letter

Equal Employment Opportunity Commis

sion letter

Department of Justice and Federal Bureau

of Investigation letter

Department of Justice and Federal Bureau

of Investigation response letter

Environment and Natural Resources Divi

sion response letter

America, The Jury (2016)

Federal Court Case Docket Summary (20172018)

App.54a

Most recent Public Court Report (January

30, 2018)

Respectfully, on February 15, 2018, I believe the

Federal Court Memorandum Opinion and Order states

that my case was dismissed, with respect to Federal

Law: 49 U.S.C. 5124.

With respect, I am not an Attorney. Respectfully,

I am a Flight Attendant, with a duty, obligation and

responsibility to ensure a safe and comfortable

environment for all souls onboard, Crew Members and

Customers.

Respectfully, I believe a safe and comfortable envi

ronment with respect to Federal law, does not include

exposure to ingredients withheld from “chemical” air

fresheners and “chemical” cleaning products used inside

the aircraft cabin.

Respectfully, although I have not personally

taken an oath to Protect the People, I believe 100

percent in our U.S. Constitution to Protect the People,

as a law abiding American Citizen.

There is also deep within, a moral and ethical

responsibility that with a good conscience, I properly

communicate - “See Something. Sav Something”. Cus

tomers don’t know to know that “chemical” exposure to

air fresheners and “chemical” cleaning products are

being used in this unique and particular environment,

with ingredients withheld.

Respectfully, I am reaching out to you all as

Most Honorable Public Servants, to help Protect the

People in this particular and unique environment.

The most concerning with respect to the Rule of Law,

is the inability to follow first aid protocol. The

App.55a

“chemical” exposure products first aid protocol and

procedures are not an option, and is what contributes

to unhealthiness and airsickness. Respectfully, no

one should be required to breathe any chemical expo

sure or poisonous air quality, however, because

“chemicals” are what is being used to clean and air

freshen inside the aircraft cabin, everyone is subject

to harm. With respect, this is not Safe or Healthy.

With respect, I am requesting and petitioning

for transparency to the complete ingredient list to

the “chemical” air fresheners and “chemical” cleaning

products used inside the aircraft cabin for Safety and

Health measures. Respectfully, the inability to follow

first aid protocol warrants this respectful request, as

it goes against all civil rights to the whole Global AirTraveling Public.

With respect to our governments “ways and

means, sources and methods”, can you please be willing

to be 100 percent transparent with the air quality

product ingredients, providing Protection for the

People, especially in this type of Human Traffic

environment?

What is the reason for using “chemicals” vs

Mother Earths transparent pure and healthy resources?

Respectfully, is this more about methods and money,

than Protecting the People?

Respectfully, is it against the law to intentionally

harm people, especially to make a profit? With respect,

would that be considered a crime?

Respectfully, is this a form of Obstruction of

Justice the way it is now? Respectfully, knowing this

practice is happening and doing nothing?

App.56a

With respect, are our Civil Rights being violated

as a simple Human Beings, who are required and

must breathe “chemicals” in this environment?

Respectfully, what is more important: To have no

air quality standards and secrets, with this continued

unfair practice, intentionally harming and hurting

human health or Protecting the People with trans

parency to our air quality?

Protecting the People, is being 100 percent

transparent in this particular and unique environment,

especially with respect to the air quality we breathe.

At present the “chemical” air freshener ingredients

state: Not applicable.

At present the Crew Members and Customers do

not have the right to know the withheld ingredients

to the “chemical” products used inside the aircraft

cabin of which we are breathing.

With respect to my respectful questions, I am

simply reaching out for common sense answers for

the Global Air Traveling Public’s Health and Safety.

Respectfully, is this “chemical” practice following

Federal Law? is it fair, right or just?

With respect to the EEOC’s letter, I also need to

know that my Employer is certified and 100 percent

in compliance with the statues. Respectfully, in refer

ence to using withheld ingredients of “chemicals” for

air fresheners and “chemicals” for cleaning, inside

the aircraft cabin, or is this practice considered a vio

lation of Federal Law 49 U.S.C. 5124?

Respectfully, I love the Global Air Traveling

Public. With respect, I love people and believe in my

government to Protect the People.

App.57a

Thank you for being the most Honorable Public

Servants, taking the oath to Protect the People and

upholding our US. Constitution for all American Citi

zens. I truly admire you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Alessio

P.S. Respectfully, a reference copy of this letter is also

being mailed to our Most Honorable President of the

United States of America, President Donald Trump.

App.58a

LETTER FROM PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO TO EXECUTIVE

BRANCH, (DO J) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(NOVEMBER 13, 2018)

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

RE: Federal Law 49 U.S. Code 5124, Compliance

with Commercial Airlines-follow up

To our most Honorable Leaders of the United States

of America:

Honorable Acting Attorney General,

Mr. Matthew Whitaker

Honorable Director of the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, Mr. Christopher Wray

Honorable Acting Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Mr. Andrew Wheeler

Honorable Secretary of the Department

of Transportation, Ms. Elaine Chao

Honorable Secretary of Health and

Human Services, Mr. Alex Azar

Dear Public Servant Leaders of the United States of

America.

This letter comes to you with care, concern and

kindness, and with great respect to the Commercial

Air-Traveling Public Health and Safety: Air-Qualitv,

Respectfully, it has been brought to my attention

on April 18, 2017, that the Equal Employment Opportu-

App.59a

nity Commission concluded that they could not certify

that my Employer is in compliance with the statues.

With great respect to my Employer, my duties

and responsibilities as a Flight Attendant is to ensure

a safe and comfortable environment. With great respect

to my Inflight Crew Members and the Global AirTraveling Public, I filed with the Federal Court for

verification and confirmation that in fact, my Employer

is certified and 100 percent in compliance with the

statutes: Federal Law, 49 U.S. Code 5124.

With great respect to my Employer, United Air

lines, my case was filed on July 7, 2017. As of this

letter, the Court has not made a ruling and is pending.

Respectfully, for your reference the case number is:

5:17-CV-01426, at the Ohio Northern District Court.

Please reference my letter dated March 1, 2018,

of which I respectfully, addressed to all of you. Please

note: Respectfully, on March 1, 2018, the letter was

addressed to former Honorable Attorney General, Mr.

Jeff Sessions and former Honorable Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Scott Pruitt.

Respectfully, I believe I have not received a

response since the date of my March 1, 2018, letter.

With respect, this was communicated and noted

respectfully in two Public Court Reports. For your

reference: Ohio Industrial Commission, Akron, Ohio.

District Hearing dated on April 20, 2018 and Staff

Hearing, July 30, 2018.

Respectfully, I am also reaching out to Congress

requesting a “Certificate of compliance”. The aircraft

onboard chemical cleaning substance products and

aircraft onboard chemical air-freshening products,

including the chemical fragrance hand soaps in the

App.60a

aircraft lavatories, I believe are not appropriate for

use in this environment.

With respect, my work environment has a Federal

Law to protect the people from harm. With respect,

do you know if there is “Certificate of Compliance”,

in fact stating Commercial Airlines are in compliance

with the rule of law?

Respectfully, I believe a “Certificate of Compliance”

should be posted for the Air-Traveling Public to read

next to the Federal Law, stating the products used

inside the Aircraft Cabin are 100 percent in compliance

with Federal Law and a website to visit for list of

ingredients. This to be sure that in fact the Airline

Industry products are safe, transparent and 100 per

cent in compliance with Federal Law.

Respectfully, I love the Global Air-Traveling Public.

With respect, I love people and believe in my Govern

ment and the US Constitution: To Protect the People.

Thank you for being the most Honorable Public

Servants, taking the oath to Protect the People,

whether we are on the ground or in the air. I truly

admire you.

My hope and prayer is to hear from you with a

safer, transparent and healthier environment for all

Air-Travelers, because there should be no secrets-our

air quality up there, really and truly does matter.

App.61a

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Alessio

P.S. Respectfully, a reference copy of this letter is also

being mailed to our Most Honorable President of the

United States of America, President Donald Trump.

JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT

State of Ohio

County of Summit

See Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines

1-7 below)

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me

this 13th day of November, 2018, by

Christina M. Alessio

Name of Signer No. 1

/s/ Tiffany Nicewander

Signature of Notary Public

State of Ohio

Comm. Exp. Jan 23, 2022

Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above

OPTIONAL

This section is required for notarizations performed

in Arizona but is optional in other states. Completing

this information can deter alteration of the document

or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an

unintended document.

App.62a

Description of Attached Document

Title or Type of Document Re: Federal Law 49

U.S. Code 5124. Compliance with Commercial Airlines

Document Date: November 13. 2018.

Number of Pages: 2

• ■•

ill!!

i -i

g "1

z$ S'k[ m

3 aa

If?

§ss

n ii*

*ai

000000*

aa a oao

'll

p x >\

i i

s vU I

« I aa

IIs

App.63a

LETTER FROM PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

CHRISTINA ALESSIO TO EXECUTIVE

BRANCH, (DOJ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(JANUARY 7, 2020)

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

RE: Certificate of Compliance with Commercial

Airlines Products in Aircraft Cabins-follow up

To our most Honorable Leaders of the United States

of America:

Honorable Attorney General,

Mr. William Barr

Honorable Director of the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, Mr. Christopher Wray

Honorable Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Mr. Andrew Wheeler

Honorable Secretary of the Department

of Transportation, Ms. Elaine Chao

Honorable Secretary of Health and

Human Services, Mr. Alex Azar

Dear Public Servant Leaders of the United States of

America.

This letter comes to you with care, concern and

kindness, and with great respect to the Commercial

Air-Traveling Public Health and Safety: Air-Quality.

Respectfully, it has been brought to my attention

on April 18, 2017, that the Equal Employment Oppor

tunity Commission concluded that they could not

App.64a

certify that my Employer is in compliance with the

statues. Please reference SUPREME COURT of THE

UNITED STATES. Case # 19-395 (Petition. Appendix

94a-95a), filed September 19. 2019.

With great respect to my Employer, my duties

and responsibilities as a Flight Attendant is to ensure

a safe and comfortable environment. With great

respect to my Inflight Crew Members and the Global

Air-Traveling Public, I filed with the Federal Court for

verification and confirmation that in fact, my Employer

is verified and certified 100 percent in compliance

with the statutes, approving and using Chemical

Substance Products inside the Aircraft Cabin.

With great-respect to my Employer, United Air

lines, my case was originally filed on July 7, 2017.

And respectfully, the Federal Question has never

been answered. A Petition for Rehearing has been

filed on December 19, 2019. Respectfully, Conference

with the Honorable Justices, is scheduled for January

17, 2020, at THE SUPREME COURT of THE UNITED

STATES of AMERICA.

Please reference my letters dated March 1, 2018,

and November 13, 2018, of which I respectfully,

addressed to all of you.

Please note: Respectfully, on March 1, 2018, the

letter was addressed to former Honorable Attorney

General, Mr. Jeff Sessions and former Honorable

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,

Mr. Scott Pruitt. And on November 13, 2018, the letter

was addressed to former Acting Attorney General,

Mr. Matthew Whitaker and then Acting Administrator

of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Andrew

Wheeler.

App.65a

Respectfully, I believe I have not received a

response since the beginning date of my March 1,

2018, letter, of which was communicated and noted

respectfully in two Public Court Report Records. For

your reference: Ohio industrial Commission, Akron,

Ohio. District Hearing dated on April 20, 2018 and

Staff Hearing, July 30, 2018. Respectfully, November

13, 2018, letter was also communicated and noted in

the District Hearing dated February 7, 2019, at the

Ohio Industrial Commission, Cleveland, Ohio.

Respectfully, can our 116th Congress please pro

vide a “Certificate of Compliance”, to the Commercial

Airline Aircraft Cabin products?

With respect, I believe the Aircraft environment

has a Federal Law to protect people from harm.

With great respect, Air-Travelers have a right to

know what they are breathing during the flight.

Respectfully, why haven’t then Aircraft Cabin Products

been made Public?

Respectfully, I love the Global Air-Traveling Public.

With respect, I love people and believe in my Govern

ment and the US Constitution: To Protect the People.

Thank you for being the most Honorable Public

Servants, taking the oath to Protect the People and

to work for the American Citizen, whether we are on

the ground or in the air. I truly admire you.

My hope and prayer is to hear from you with a

safer, transparent and healthier environment for all

Air-Travelers, because there should be no secrets-our

air quality up there, really and truly does matter.

App.66a

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Alessio

P.S. Respectfully, a reference copy of this letter is also

being mailed to our Most Honorable President of the

United States of America, President Donald Trump.

App.67a

OHIO JURAT § 147-551

State of Ohio

County of Summit

Sworn to or affirmed and subscribed before me by

Christina Alessio

Name of Person Making Jurat

this date of 01/07/2020

Is/ Tiffany Nicewander

Signature of Notary Public

Administering Jurat

State of Ohio

Comm. Exp. Jan 23rd, 2022

OPTIONAL

Completing this information can deter alteration

of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this

form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document

Title or Type of Document Re: Certificate of

Compliance with Commercial Airlines Products in

Aircraft Cabin-Follow Up

Document Date: January 7. 2020.

Number of Pages: 2

App.68a

'l<w>

iMti

tt>

film

rj*

»,*

P'S

<M»

*«9qnR.K XSO

tan

R IBU

#»

S3 tai »»«■>«»>■

**%So manta*

ROW

m»

ta«

M*MW«

SS£tSS»asiati

testa■ •GRtrmto

tW __

•atr* a uw

BBS

«nt:

tO«

Mibiam

»<

IWFOt I MUJ

IIHOOrtOB.ttB

e**<

*0«0 Brtil

,M?S&

■*»

0« «5»

AM «*»

tWoB»nBm

SCV^fSeS &g*

e«,sa&tt£3St*s

vwobmb*

trip l*m um ^iuiBiib Ml

•otOMB ma

»Wa • t» P» liinpn

ocHa hmei I«ks bmm.

UvMMBMMMD —

s^s-sv'srr.i^rsr.

%■**■».

i miai

Sj^WMwSroSiSmBttii n

SMMST.e»

(BBS B»W nr MSS.

minsooDB

a an «* emu

OTlDIIIHIIIIi

* M f*l OS BO

mem

stanasm

aNwam

wJoTOO

■a»

■ WPlIIlM RIM 11

~srjxu

MBB

Ot«l

App.69a

LETTER FROM CHRISTINA ALESSIO

TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH,

OHIO SENATORS AND CONGRESSWOMEN

(MAY 15, 2020)

RE: 2020 AIRLINE INDUSTRY SAFETY &

HEALTH BILL PROPOSAL

Honorable Ohio Senator Rob Portman

Honorable Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

Honorable Ohio Congresswoman

Marcia Fudge

Honorable Ohio Congresswoman

Marcy Kaptur

Dear Honorable United States Representatives,

This letter comes to you with care, concern and

kindness.

During these uncertain times of the Coronavirus

(COVIDT9), and as an American Citizen who believes

in the United States Constitution to protect the

People, I would like to propose “A BILL”, for research

and review. Thereafter, approved by all Members of

Congress (House and Senate), for the President of

the United States of America, to proudly sign into law.

A BILL PROPOSAL

Making a “Certificate of Compliance” to

uphold with the current Rule of Law, Federal Law:

49 U.S.C. 5124.

Respectfully, providing Government Oversight by

the 116th Congress with a posting of a “Certificate

of Compliance”, ensuring that all Products have

App.70a

been researched and reviewed, which are used inside

the Aircraft Cabin for Cleaning and Air Freshening.

Verifying all Products are not only Safe and Trans

parent, also made Public for the Safety and Health of

the Global Air'Traveling Public.

“Right to Know”, what are we breathing, is it

safe?

Respectfully as of today, Chemical Substance

Products are being used inside the Aircraft Cabin,

with no Public Transparency (Safety Data Sheets!

made available for verification, with regards to the

occupants Safety and Health in the Aircraft Cabin.

Respectfully, Transparency equals Trust.

Respectful references available for research and

review:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES-Case: #19-395

AMERICA, THE JURY-First and Second

Sequel (books available online)

Respectfully, as of today there are no Indoor AirQualitv Standards bv OSHA.

Respectfully, A Simple Resolution: A Safety and

Health Solutions Act. Providing Products that are in

fact Safe, Transparent, Non-Toxic, Chemical-Free for

the Aircraft Cabin. With respect, allowing the Products

Scientific Data (SDS-Safetv Data Sheets’) to be made

available for the Public’s awareness and knowledge.

Respectfully, please allow me in any further way

to get involved and help make it become law, to pro

tect the People: The Air-Traveler.

App.71a

Respectfully, please also share this letter openly

with everyone in the House and the Senate. With

respect, this is truly about doing what is right,

especially during these most sensitive times.

Respectfully, Transparency = Trust.

Respectfully, this letter will be read at a Court

Reported Hearing to preserve the record for respect

to the Public, and for the respectful truth be told.

Respectfully, both Honorable United States

Attorney General William Barr and Honorable Ohio

Governor Mike DeWine, will be receiving a copy of

this letter for their knowledge and the record.

A very sincere “Thank You for your time and

attention regarding this matter, especially during

these most sensitive times.

Respectfully, requesting a public response.

Sincerely,

Is/ Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

/s/ Alec Sweress

Notary Public, State of Ohio

Summit County

My Commission Expires: 09/08/2021

App.72a

1***

,*<;« to v '

u^-rnrs vt*i setter

^ f”** A !«>.»;»

rtRtu it.u »jav rfPCf r»

«3T

ir.

«.n

rrui

5 f- J<> '-*•-**

auifffii.'j't pfctn-i

t i «>.,•*> r»**- »

Cl«Jll'riO WA-'HfCGi**

App.73a

LETTER FROM CHRISTINA ALESSIO

TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH,

OHIO SENATORS AND CONGRESSWOMEN

(JULY 10, 2020)

RE: 2020 INDOOR AIR-QUALITY SAFETY AND

HEALTH STANDARD

Honorable Ohio Senator Rob Portman

Honorable Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown

Honorable Ohio Congresswoman

Marcia Fudge

Honorable Ohio Congresswoman

Marcy Kaptur

Dear Honorable United States Representatives,

This letter comes to you with care, concern and

kindness.

Respectfully, I have not heard from any one of

the four Public Servants, since my letter dated May

15, 2020, RE: 2020 AIRLINE INDUSTRY SAFETY

AND HEALTH BILL PROPOSAL. Respectful calls

and voicemails have been made and left, though not

one of you have called back regarding my Bill Proposal

submission.

As an American Citizen who believes in the

United States Constitution in our great Country, and

as a Flight Attendant required to ensure a safe

environment in the Aircraft Cabin, a Bill Proposal

was respectfully submitted to our Government for a

National Airline Industry Standard requiring 100%

TRANSPARENCY to our AIR-QUALITY in the Aircraft

Cabin. With respect, one would wonder why there has

App.74a

been no response from any of our 4 Public Servants

as of this very day?

Respectfully, is Government (Local, State and/or

Federal) aware or requiring Private, Public (including

Educational Institutions) and/or Corporate America,

to use certain Chemicals in their Indoor Environment

Businesses?

Complete knowledge of our Indoor Air-Quality is

more important, now than ever before, due to the

symptoms of the Coronavirus (COVID'19).

With great respect, I would therefore like to sub

mit a follow-up: Bill Proposal

“A BILL”, for research and review. Thereafter,

approved by all Members of Congress (House and

Senate), for the President of the United States of

America, to proudly sign into law.

A BILL PROPOSAL

WE THE PEOPLE—“Right to Know”, what

are we breathing Indoors, is it Safe and Healthy?

A Federal Law:

Where there is: “No Smoking”

There will be: “No Chemicals” (without 100%

transparency)

Equal Justice.

Respectfully, requesting Government Oversight by

the 116th Congress, ensuring that all Products used

in Public and Common Areas, across America for

Disinfecting, Sanitizing, Cleaning and Air'Freshening

are required to provide products for Government

App.75a

approval, with an Indoor Air-Quality Safety and

Health Standard.

. *A Simple Resolution: A Safety and Health Solutions

Act.

Indoor Air-Quality Health and Safety Standard

includes:

1. 100% Product Scientific Data Transparency:

A variety of 10 Safety Data Sheets (82 Pages in total)

used in various indoor environments, have been pro

vided to Honorable Senator Rob Portman and Honor

able Attorney General William Barr, to share with

the Honorable U.S. Representatives addressed in this

letter, and Honorable Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, for

insight, clarity and understanding of the Indoor Air'

Quality Safety and Health consequences when exposed

to chemicals.

2. All Products Safety Data Sheets (SDS) posted

and copies made available to and for the Public’s

knowledge and awareness (Right to Know). Respect

fully, knowing Safety Data Sheet (SDS) information

will help better educate, WE THE PEOPLE, on why

one would want or need to wear a mask in public, in

addition to protecting one from someone’s cough or

sneeze.

3. Ultraviolet Lights (UV Lights)

Respectfully as of today, Chemical Substance

Products are being used Indoors in America’s Public

places, with little or no Doctor, Employee, Customer,

Teacher, Student, or Resident’s knowledge of the

Chemical Substance Product Safety Data Sheet infor

mation. Yet, Chemical Substance Products released into

the air, is what we all are breathing.

App.76a

This is about Equal Justice, Civil and Human

Rights: “Right to Know”, with respect to The Peoples

Indoor Air-Quality Safety and Health. HONESTY =

THE BEST POLICY.

Respectful references available for research and

review:

1. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES, Case # 19-395: Reference: Respectfully sub

mitted. with Petition. September 19. 2019: Appendix

page 115. paragraph 1.

2. AMERICA, THE JURY-First and Second

Sequel (books available online)

Respectfully, please share this letter openly with

everyone in the House and the Senate (including the 10

SDS’s provided for transparency). WE THE PEOPLE,

are breathing chemical air. With respect, this is truly

about doing what is right, especially during these

most sensitive times.

TRANSPARENCY = TRUST.

Respectfully, this letter will override the previous

BILL PROPOSAL, to be read at a Court Reported

Hearing to preserve the record, FOR THE PEOPLE

(whether on the ground or in the air), and for the

respectful truth be told.

Respectfully, both Honorable United States Attor

ney General William Barr and Honorable Ohio

Governor Mike DeWine, will be receiving a copy of

this letter for their knowledge and the record.

A very sincere “Thank You” for your time and

attention regarding this matter, especially during

these most sensitive times.

App.77a

Respectfully, requesting a public response from

Congress.

Sincerely,

/s/ Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

P.S. Respectfully, attached for reference with my Bill

Proposal, is a 5 page Public Memo dated May 20, 2020,

of one Airline launching a new Standard of Cleanliness.

App.78a

JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT

State of Ohio

County of Cuyahoga

Sworn to or affirmed and subscribed before me

this 10 day of July, 2020 by

Christina Alessio

Name of Signer No. 1

/s/ Nicolas S. Gelder

Signature of Notary Public

State of Ohio

Comm. Exp. Aug 25, 2024

OPTIONAL

This section is required for notarizations per

formed in Arizona but is optional in other states.

Completing this information can deter alteration of

the document or fraudulent reattachment of this

form to an unintended document.

Description of Attached Document

Title or Type of Document 2020 Indoor AirQualitv Safety and Health Standard Bill Proposal

Document Date: 07/10/2020,

Number of Pages: 4 including this post

App.79a

5, rti.cdrt

VI. ».«•* *».<.<,

CtO’Hi(:t> Uju:

Rf.CE ’

inn

TSu?

» '. • >n* ^ M*

CfftriHty*'au wfir*?

«l

s#«

■j s f • 1 I» W »

Ji l\(M* !**.»<•

C* rUi?:f 5 f/.u* ot r.r;ir:

*•

anwacfa*

s•*

« #*

App.80a

ALESSIO PETITION FOR REHEARING IN

SUPREME COURT, EXCERPTS

(DECEMBER 19, 2019)

NO. 19-395

•;v

Jiifjje

^uprunc Court of tye

CHRISTINA ALESSIO;

,, Petitioner,,

,v.-:

UNITElj AIRLINES; INC.;

Respondent

r>.

i.,

...t. ,. On a Petition for Writ af Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth" CircuitVs'

'•As

•PETHION FOR REHEARING

CHRISTINA ALESSIO

^PEmTOXERPBOSE

r1970 N.CliVELAND'llASSliiON ROAD

UNIT 589,

/ BATH,pH 44210

(330)338*7052

• -v’

03aniasfc!$;a>'i9.‘■SOTBOffg COURT PBtSS

<eaS)95S;S70S

•

. Boara?.-, UA3MOTU3rra _

App.81a

PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE SUPREME COURT of the UNITED

STATES of AMERICA, per Rule 44, allows a

Petition for Rehearing, with respect to the decision of

the Court. The Petition for Rehearing, Case: #19-395,

is respectfully being filed on December 19, 2019,

within the 25 days required of the Courts decision.

The Court’s decision on November 25, 2019, states:

“Petition DENIED.”

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Respectfully,

Petitioner believes “IN GOD WE TRUST”.

Petitioner believes in “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER

THE LAW”.

Petitioner believes in due process.

Petitioner began communication with the Res

pondent regarding, Safety and Health concerns of

approving Chemical Substance Products used

inside the Aircraft Cabin environment, of which

communication was also made respectfully, with the

Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) Union.

Petitioner respectfully, further reached out to our

Government Agency: Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), for an outside third party

opinion. With respect, the EEOC could not certify

the Respondent was in compliance with the statutes

App.82a

(Reference App.94a~95a).

Petitioner has since, April 18, 2017, held the res

ponsibility with this knowledge given from the EEOC,

an obligation and duty to continue to reach out to our

Government at the Lower Courts, respectfully, with

a request for an answer to the Federal Question

that the EEOC could not certify, in the interest of

the Air-Travelers Public Safety and Health, in

the air.

Federal Question:

Respectfully, is the Respondent in compliance

with the statutes using Chemical Substance

Products inside the Aircraft Cabin?

Petitioner, having reached the Highest Court

in the Land, is hoping to receive an answer to the

Federal Question, believed to be a Public Civil

and Human “Right to Know”.

Petitioner believes the answer is needed for the

respectful simple sake of the Safety and Health of

the Global Air-Traveling Public.

Petitioner is being very clear, this case is not

about me. It’s about WE.

“WE THE PEOPLE”. People traveling in the

air and breathing Chemical Substance Products

during the flight.

Petitioner believes the United States Federal

Government should know all products being used

inside Commercial Aircraft Cabins, and that all

products should have a “Certificate of

Compliance” with “100% Transparency”.

Petitioner believes in the United States

App.83a

Federal Government, which include 3 co-equal

Branches. Articles I, II, III, respectfully found

in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION of

AMERICA:

Article I. Legislative Branch

Article II. Executive Branch

Article III. Judicial Branch

Petitioner believes each Branch works

together to ensure American Citizens’ Civil and

Human Rights are being protected.

Petitioner has communicated to the best of her

ability, the Facts of this Case: #19-395, to all 3

Branches of Government, with the hopes of

receiving an answer to the Federal Question of

which the EEOC, could not certify.

Petitioner believes, THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION: To Protect the People.

Petitioner believes, “Transparency is the

best Policy”.

Petitioner believes with an answer to the

Federal Question, that a Federal Law regarding

this case, needs to be created by the 116th

Legislative Branch providing all Air-Travelers

with knowledge of a “Certificate of Compliance”

providing 100% Safe and Transparent (Products

made Public), to the Respondent's Aircraft Cabin

Products, because Safety is Top Priority.

With great respect, this Petition for Rehear

ing will be read at Petitioners future hearing: Claim

#19-202076. which was dismissed without prejudice

on December 3, 2019, with the ability to be heard at a

App.84a

later date. Respectfully, the hearing will be Court

Reported to preserve the record and for the Public’s

knowledge, for the respectful truth be told.

With the upmost respect, may it concluded that

this Petition for Rehearing be denied, may it then be

that maybe one day “WE THE PEOPLE”, will come

together for sake of the Public’s Safety and Health

in the Aircraft Cabin. Respectfully, maybe just

maybe one day, the Air-Traveling Public will come

together and become - AMERICA, THE JURY.

CONCLUSION

With the upmost respect, the Petitioner Pro se,

would sincerely like to take this opportunity to thank

you for your time with the full review of Case: #19395, in the Highest Court in the Land, THE

SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES of

AMERICA.

Most Honorable Mr. Chief Justice John

Roberts

Most Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas

Most Honorable Justice Ruth Ginsburg

Most Honorable Justice Stephen Breyer

Most Honorable Justice Samuel Alito

Most Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Most Honorable Justice Elena Kagan

Most Honorable Justice Neil Gorsuch

Most Honorable Justice Brett Kavanaugh

App.85a

Respectfully, for the foregoing reasons

submitted in good conscience and good faith, may

THE SUPREME COURT find merit in this case for

change, providing an answer to a Federal

Question, granting the Petitioner a rehearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Christina Alessio

Petitioner Pro Se

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road

Unit 589

Bath, OH 44210

(330) 338-7052

December 19,2019

App.86a

RULE 44 CERTIFICATE

I, CHRISTINA Alessio, petitioner pro se, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare under penalty of perjury

that the following is true and correct:

1. This Petition for Rehearing is presented in

good faith and not for delay.

2. The grounds of this petition are limited to

intervening circumstances of a substantial or

controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not

previously presented.

Signature*

'Executed on

)%/!!*•

Date

State of Ohio" .

Countvof

i'.

Sworn'to t6r affirmed end subscribed bdforerrie; by

. Name of Person Making Jurat

ihts'aateofV

ti-ur -wi#

Date

, Signature of Notary Public AdministeringJurat:

Title or Rbrik

Ml, llv

Commission Expirotlob'Date

App.87a

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ORAL ARGUMENT AUDIO IN TRANSCRIPT

(NOVEMBER 16, 2022)

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CLAIM tfs HEARD: 20-194183, 20-194185, 20-194187

November 16, 2022 at 10:30am

ISSUE TO BE HEARD:

Respectfully requesting a reversal from the lower

Court of Common Pleas, granting Summary Judgment

to the Appellee.

ERRATA

PAGE: 2

LINE: 4-5

CORRECTION: Respectfully, there was no good

morning on the audio.

PAGE: 2

LINES: 24

CORRECTION: should read: “Case No. 111449”.

PAGE: 3

LINE: 9

CORRECTION: should read: “Honorable Judge

Sheehan”.

PAGE: 4

LINE: 12

CORRECTION: should read: “opinions”.

App.88a

PAGE: 4

LINE: 22

CORRECTION: should read: “just isn’t”.

PAGE: 11

LINE: 7

CORRECTION: should read: “piggy back off Judge

Sheehan’s question”.

PAGE: 22

LINES: 10

CORRECTION: should read: “20-194187”

PAGE: 23

LINE: 19

CLARIFICATION: Appellant heard: “Out of curiousity,

when was the protective equipment provided?”

PAGE: 26

LINE: 11

CLARIFICATION: Appellant heard: “such a way

that they”

PAGE: 27

LINE: 8

CORRECTION: Should read: “safety data sheets”

PAGE: 33

LINE: 5

CORRECTION: Should read: “Most Honorable Sean

C. Gallagher”

App.89a

Signature:

/s/ Christina Alessio

Date: May 22, 2023

App.90a

TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

BEFORE THE EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

UNITED AIRLINES, ET AL.,

No. 111449

Proceedings electronically sound recorded;

transcript produced by

Douglas Bettis, Stenographic Court Reporter

PROCEEDINGS

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Good morning.

MS. ALESSIO: Good morning.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: I just want to remind everybody

that these proceedings are now recorded pursuant

to a change in the appellate rules. So there is a

recording available.

Ms. Alessio, you are representing yourself, so just

to give you a little bit of a backdrop. You have 15

minutes to argue your position. You can save

time after appellee makes his argument. So you

can come on up and tell me if you want to save

any time, you can, and then you can proceed into

your argument. Okay.

App.91a

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, sir.

THE CLERK: Your Honor, can I—

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Go ahead. I’m sorry. Let’s

let—let’s put the case on the record.

THE CLERK: Okay. It’s 11409, Christina Alessio

versus United Airlines, et al.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Okay. All right.

Ms. Alessio, we are all set now. Okay. Go ahead,

ma’am. Do you want to save any time? Just tell

me.

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, Your Honor.

May it please the Court. Most Honorable Judge

Sean C. Gallagher, most Honorable Michelle J.

Sheehan, most Honorable Judge Lisa B. Forbes,

good morning.

My name is Christina Alessio. And I am the

plaintiff-appellant, pro se, in today’s case, 111449.

And I’m respectfully requesting three minutes

for rebuttal.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Okay. Very good.

MS. ALESSIO: Today is November 16, 2022. And we

are all gathered here today together in your

work environment. The Court of Appeals.

It’s the most amazing, beautiful, historical court

room that I have ever been in.

APPELLATE JUDGE: I think we can all agree on

that one.

MS. ALESSIO: And I do love the words above you that

say, “This is a government of law not of men.”

App.92a

It’s a pleasure to be here.

Appellant, pro se, has respectfully requested an

oral argument with appellant’s brief and is

looking for a meaningful review of the lower

court’s decision from the Court of Common Pleas

granting the appellee’s motion for summary

judgment, respectfully, with no opinion.

Opinions are respectfully opinion. The facts are

respectfully the facts. And the law is respectfully

the law.

May the law and the facts in this case reverse the

lower court’s decision moving this case forward,

not just in the appellant’s favor, indeed also for

the people’s favor due to appellant’s job duty and

responsibility.

Respectfully, this case isn’t just about me. It’s

about we—we the people.

With great respect, appellant is a flight attendant

for United Airlines, the appellee in this case.

Whereby, my job duty and responsibility is to

ensure a safe environment in the aircraft cabin,

my work environment, and safe for the people,

the air traveler.

Both appellant and appellee agree, we want to

become the world’s greatest airline in aviation

history. And safety is top priority, except when

it comes to chemical inhalation exposure.

Respectfully, due to our limited time, appellant

shall be brief. Appellant is seeking for one

hundred percent transparency to three simple

respectful questions, a brief review of five key

App.93a

points of law with one simple fact that had the

appellee protected the appellant from chemical

inhalation exposure by furnishing personal

protective equipment, PPE, there would have

been no injury. And two opinions written in the

appellee’s brief.

Chemical inhalation exposure took place in the

aircraft cabin with no personal protective equip

ment, PPE, furnished by the appellee for the

appellant to avoid injury October 6, 7, 8 of 2019,

claim numbers 20-194183, 20-194185, and 20194187.

Without personal protective equipment, PPE, to

avoid chemical inhalation exposure, injury was

substantial aggravation, irritation, and harm to

rheumatoid arthritis in both hands and wrists,

requiring appellant to seek medical attention,

medical care, and medical treatment.

The three simple respectful questions appellant

views the answers highly important in today’s oral

argument seeking one hundred percent trans

parency for insight, clarity, and understanding:

One, what are the ingredients to the chemical air

freshener used inside the aircraft cabin, JetScent

Pump Spray? With great respect, safety data

sheet communicates substances not applicable.

Two, why wasn’t personal protective equipment,

PPE, furnished by the appellee to protect the

appellant from chemical inhalation exposure?

Safety data sheet respectfully communicates the

first aid measures to remove to fresh air.

App.94a

Respectfully, this is not an option in my work

environment.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Before you proceed to the

third, can I ask you a question?

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, ma’am.

UNIDENTIFIED JUDGE: So when I read your appeal,

your appeal says: I’m upset because they cancelled

a pretrial and didn’t give an opinion—a written

opinion.

And I just wanted to kind of clarify that. What

•exactly are you asking us today? What do you

want us to do?

MS. ALESSIO: I would like a hundred percent trans

parency. I would like all the names of the

products that are used inside the aircraft cabin

for cleaning, disinfecting, sanitizing, and air

freshening with safety data sheets to be made

one hundred percent transparent so in this

environment it is proven to be safe not just for

the flight attendants and the pilots, but for the

customers that we are responsible for.

So the third question would be why wasn’t an

independent medical examination, IME, ever

conducted by the appellee with a total of 23

work injury claims filed with the BWC due to

chemical inhalation exposure from 2010 to 2019,

when safety’s top priority?

APPELLATE JUDGE: How many of those were filed

by you?

MS. ALESSIO: Well, the first four, I think, were from

another attorney with the union. They had—

App.95a

APPELLATE JUDGE: No, no, no. I mean on your

behalf.

MS. ALESSIO: Excuse me, I don’t—

UNIDENTIFIED JUDGE: When you say there were

23 claims filed with BWC. Are they all on your

behalf?

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, they are, Your Honor. Yes, they

are.

APPELLATE JUDGE: And over what period of time?

MS. ALESSIO: 2010 to 2019.

And with respect to safety being a top priority,

and 23 work injuries having taken place, and no

independent medical examination, I have some

thing wonderful to say to you all right now:

Today’s three work injuries claims are the last

because, with respect, appellee furnishes PPE.

With PPE, no injury. Without PPE, injury. Withwithout.

Five key points of law with one respectful fact

that had the appellee protected the appellant

from chemical inhalation exposure by furnishing

personal protective equipment, PPE, there would

have been no injury.

First law, Ohio BWC law, Chapter 2.2, employer’s

obligation. Respectfully, appellee breached a

legal duty to protect the appellant from chemical

inhalation exposure.

Two, Ohio administrative codes regarding PPE,

applicability, additional awards by reason of

specific safety requirements.

App.96a

APPELLATE JUDGE: Can I ask another question?

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, ma’am. Yes, Your Honor.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Has there ever been a doctor

that has said the injury is because of the

exposure on the airplane?

MS. ALESSIO: I had an independent medical exami

nation done. It was called an ambient exposure

challenge test.

And it is, with respect, genuine issue of material

fact, Exhibit L, pages 7 through 11. The example

in which I will quote the doctor stated to these

products that I’m being exposed to—appellant—it

says, quote, the joint circumference had increased,

in parentheses, 0.25-0.75, parentheses, unquote.

I can’t make my hands swell. I have to inhale

something that’s harmful, my body reacts, and

it’s called irritation, inflammation.

The third law, VSSR violation of a specific safety

requirement—

JUDGE FORBES: Can I go back to that—

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE FORBES: —just to piggyback off—

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE FORBES: —Judge Sheehan’s question. That

your hands swelled. You’ve just identified for us

where we can find evidence of that in the record.

Where in the record, if anywhere, is there an—

an opinion—medical opinion or opinion by anyone

other than yourself that the air freshener is

what caused your hand to swell?

App.97a

MS. ALESSIO: They—they don’t use the word “cause.”

If you would go to Exhibit L, pages 1 through 47,

is the medical file that was respectfully submitted.

And that is where you’re going to find probable

cause. You’re going to find the ambient exposure

challenge test.

If, in fact, no one believes me, why won’t they do

an independent medical examination? I’m

exhausted. I have gone to great lengths to not

only protect myself but the people I’m responsible

for. And they are denying an independent medical

examination. It makes no sense, respectfully.

And the fourth law would be OSHA, 29 Code of

Federal Regulations 1910.1200. The right to

work in a safe and healthy workplace environment.

And the fifth law, Title 49, U.S. Code 5124.

APPELLATE JUDGE: So can I—I have another

question.

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, Your Honor.

APPELLATE JUDGE: So you filed a claim for this in

2019, different than the claim that’s at issue in

this appeal; right? Previously, you filed a claim

in 2019.

MS. ALESSIO: I filed on the day that I—well, I got

done with my four-day trip on October 9, 2019. I

went to the Urgent Care. At Urgent Care has a

BWC first report of injury, but I wrote it 8—

10/5-8/2019. So I had to rewrite them separately

so they could each be an individual claim.

So the claim numbers I read at the beginning are

just for the three.

App.98a

APPELLATE JUDGE: Those are 2020 claims. You

filed—you originally had a 2019 claim. That got

dismissed. And now you re-filed three separate

in 2020.

MS. ALESSIO: I literally had to dismiss the three

that I’m hearing—we’re hearing today, without

prejudice to be heard at a later date because of

all these claims—all these work injuries. I can’t

keep up with it.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Right.

MS. ALESSIO: So I had the one on the 5th heard

individually on its own. And it is—there’s a

transcript. I have over 13 transcripts respect to

my work injuries.

The fifth title, 49 U.S. Code 5124—

JUDGE FORBES: I’m sorry, I need to, again, piggyback

off of what Judge Sheehan was just asking.

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE FORBES: I—I was under the impression,

from my review of the record, that the hearing

officer actually arrived at a decision with regard

to the claim that was 19-202076.

And now you’re saying no, no, that’s not right or

are we talking—are we talking about two different

types of claims?

MS. ALESSIO: So the claim 19-202076 has been

denied. All 23 have been denied at the Ohio

Industrial Commission. It was only these three

that I took up the ladder to the judicial system.

JUDGE FORBES: Okay. And that the 2020-076—

App.99a

MS. ALESSIO: Yes.

JUDGE FORBES: —did deal with the dates of October

5th—

MS. ALESSIO: It was the first—

JUDGE FORBES: —October 8th.

MS. ALESSIO: Sorry, it was the first trip—first day

of a four-day trip, October 5th, is 19-202076.

APPELLATE JUDGE: But it was amended to include

all three days. The 19-2020—202076 claim

originally was of October 5th, but amended to

include the 5th, 6th, and 7th—or 6, 7, 8?

MS. ALESSIO: The two—the two separate.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Okay.

MS. ALESSIO: In other words, the first injury in

2010 to October 5th, 2019, 19-202076. There’sit’s res judicata. They’re done. They’re over.

They haven’t been adjudicated yet. I mean, these

three today have not been adjudicated.

APPELLATE JUDGE: We’re trying to figure out

these three today are the same as the 19—

MR. GALLAGHER: Are they the same thing? Are

they the same thing?

MS. ALESSIO: Yes, the chemical inhalation exposure.

All 23 chemical inhalation exposure.

APPELLATE JUDGE: So what are the dates at issue

today? October 6th?

MS. ALESSIO: October 6, October 7, October 8th of

2019. The reason it has a claim number of 20

instead of 19 is because they were dismissed to

App.lOOa

be heard at a later date, you know, because it

was just too much for—

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Okay.

MS. ALESSIO: —pro se.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: You want to save—you want

to save your three minutes, so-unless the panel

is—

MS. ALESSIO: I did want to—

JUDGE GALLAGHER: —do you have a question,

Judge Forbes?

JUDGE FORBES: I’m just—I’m wondering where in

the record we can find that dismissal.

MS. ALESSIO: It’s in the record of proceedings. The

record of proceedings for all of my work injuries

ended at the Ohio Industrial Commission. It was

only the 60-day timeframe in between the denial

that I filed the notice of appeal on July 7, 2021,

at the Court of Common Pleas.

And then at the Court of Common Pleas there

was no opinion and they granted motion for

summary judgment to United, and, you know,

I’m just here to try to—

JUDGE GALLAGHER: And you did not appeal the

2019MS. ALESSIO: No, I did not.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Okay.

MS. ALESSIO: Yeah.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Okay. All right. We’ll save

you time. Thank you very much.

App.lOla

Counsel.

MS. ALESSIO: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. SHAW: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please

the Court, my name is Mark Shaw. I’m appearing

today here on behalf of the appellee, United

Airlines.

Just to address Judge Forbes, and Judge Sheehan’s

questions—the last questions about those last

claims. There’s never been a dismissal of the

claims. There’s been outright denial of the claims.

In fact, all of the 23 claims that Ms. Alessio has

described starting in 2010, have all been denied

by the Industrial Commission on their merits.

APPELLATE JUDGE: To be clear, though, the 2019

claim was not appealed by her.

MR. SHAW: That’s correct. Yeah.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Was denied and not appealed.

MR. SHAW: Yeah.

APPELLATE JUDGE: And does the 2019 claim involve

the same dates that this case involves?

MR. SHAW: Absolutely, yes.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Okay.

MR. SHAW: And I’ll—I’ll address that as well.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Thank you.

MR. SHAW: So we believe that appellant’s appeal must

fail for three—three separate and independent

reasons.

One, based on the doctrine of res judicata. Two, the

request of conditions at issue, chemical exposure\

App.l02a

inhalation, and bilateral handVwrist injuries are

not compensable conditions under the Ohio

workers’ compensation system.

And then three, I think as you were talking and

asking questions of appellant before, the trial

court record that is before you today contains no

sworn testimony from any medical provider by

affidavit, or otherwise, which would support appel

lant’s claims that she sustained a compensable

injury as a direct and proximate result of the

alleged exposure to any chemical substance during

the three days at issue in this appeal October

6th, October 7th, and October 8th of 2019.

So addressing the res judicata argument first, I

think it’s important to go through these facts

because they are very—I think very straight

forward and very simple.

Claim number 19-202076, appellant had alleged

accumulative trauma injury\exposure occurring

over four days. Those days were October 5th,

October 6th, October 7th, and October 8th of

2019. And that was alleged due to a—an exposure

to some air freshener in the aircraft cabin.

You’ll notice in both the district hearing officer’s

order and the staff hearing officer’s order, it’s

clear that Ms. Alessio, the appellant, had amended

her claims to include alleged exposures on all

four of those dates. And the DHO and the staff

hearing officer denied her claim for the requested

conditions of chemical exposure\inhalation and

bilateral hand, wrist, finger injuries.

Now, pursuant to—as you know workers’ com

pensation is a very statutory system. So pursuant

App.l03a

to Revised Code Section 4123.511(E), appellant’s

further appeal to the full Industrial Commission

was refused.

And that order was mailed on February 18, 2021.

And, therefore, upon receipt of that order and

pursuant to Revised Code Section 4123.512,

appellant was required to file a notice of appeal

in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

within 60 days.

I would submit to you, it’s undisputed that

appellant failed to file that appeal. I think she’s

indicated that today.

Therefore, under the statutory section of 4123.512,

and well-established case law, appellant’s claims

for any injury to alleged exposures for those days

in question, October 5th, October 6th, October

7th, and October 8th were forever barred.

Now, you have the three claims at issue today,

the 20-194183, 20-194185, and 20-194187. So

instead of filing her notice of appeal regarding

those exposures in claim 19—the 19 claim, there

were three other form—claim forms filed. And

they are exactly the same.

Claim number 20-194183 alleged identical facts

and allegations as claim number 19-202076,

except the claim had a specific date of alleged

exposure of October 6.

Same thing with claim number 20-194185, same

alleged identical facts and allegations as claim

number 19-202076, except that had a specific

date alleged injury exposure of October 8, 2019.

App.l04a

And finally the last claim, number 2020-194187,

allege the exact identical facts and allegations as

claim number 19-202076, except that was a

specific alleged injury exposure of October 7,

2019.

APPELLATE JUDGE: And procedurally when were

the claims filed this case? What that October 1,

2020?

MR. SHAW: So if you—on—on both—on all of the

staff orders, they reference when those all

different—so when you file a claim in the system,

there’s a—the form is first report of injury-1—

FROI-1 form. Those claims are all referenced in

those staff orders.

Claim number 20-194183 was actually filed on

October 1, 2020. Claim number 20-194185 was

filed on December 22, 2020. And claim number

20-194187 was filed on December—or I’m sorry,

October 1, 2020.

So those were all filed while the claim number

19—the 19 claim was working its way through

the Industrial Commission System.

So, again, based on those facts we believe that

all three of the claims that are at issue before

you today, and is subject to this appeal, were all

the same exact facts and same exact injury and

exposure as the appellant had previously

adjudicated with the Industrial Commission in

claim number 19-202076.

APPELLATE JUDGE: And Mr. Alessiti [verbatim],

when was protective equipment provided?

MR. SHAW: I’m sorry.

App.l05a

APPELLATE JUDGE: When was the protective

equipment provided?

MR. SHAW: When was the—well, first of all, that’s a

whole separate issue beyond this appeal.

And we don’t—I’m not even really at liberty to—

to—not at liberty—I don’t know that to direct

answer your question.

But I think that begs the question, I’m not even

sure that protective equipment was necessary in

this case.

But, again, that’s not—I would submit that’s not

at all part of the appeal. But I understand your

question.

So under the doctrine of res judicata, we believe

that this appeal literally must fail on those

grounds. But further grounds, I think, are within

the record to support the trial court’s decision

here.

The alleged conditions that appellant is requesting,

this chemical exposure and this bilateral hand\

wrist injury—would argue that they fail to meet

any of the specificity requirements to establish a

compensable claim under Ohio law.

For those—to establish a condition for a workers’

compensation claim it must include the body

part, for example a right ankle, right shoulder,

left knee, those types of descriptions, and then

the nature of the disability.

Is it—is it a fracture? Is it is strain? Is a herniated

disc? Is it a burn? Those types of things.

App.l06a

There is no basis under Ohio workers’ compen

sation law simply to allow a claim for a generic

term of injury.

That—that—it wouldn’t possibly work under the

system if you just had a claim allowed for injury.

How would you ever pay medical bills? How

would you ever pay compensation based on that?

It has to be specific to both the body part and

the nature of the disability.

So the chemical exposure—

APPELLATE JUDGE: Can I just interrupt you for a

quick second here? That in terms of this—as you

just raised—this notion of what’s compensable—

MR. SHAW: Yes.

APPELLATE JUDGE: —and what are available

compensation.

MR. SHAW: Yes.

APPELLATE JUDGE: If I’m understanding correctly

what—what appellant is seeking here is informa

tion in terms of that substance report that would

identify what is the chemical makeup of this air

freshener.

Is—is the workers’ compensation system designed

in such a way that it could afford that relief to

her through the workers’ comp system?

MR. SHAW: Yes. I mean, I think there is—there’s rules

under the workers’ compensation system for the

exchange of discovery and free information

regarding anything—

APPELLATE JUDGE: But in terms of—you know, in

terms of the outcome of the case.

App.l07a

I guess, maybe, a better way to ask this is like—

because that’s sort of in the nature of injunctive

relief.

Is there a mechanism for injunctive relief through

the workers’ comp system?

MR. SHAW: Not that I’m aware of, no.

APPELLATE JUDGE: Thank you.

MR. SHAW: No, no.

And to maybe further answer the question, Judge

Forbes, is the safety datasheets clearly have the

information regarding the substance that appellant

is alleging caused her conditions.

But beyond that, that would be up to the individual

to obtain that information, obtain expert testi

mony, expert opinions on whether or not that

particular—anything in that safety data sheet

would cause an injury.

I just have to comment one thing that appellant

did say. She mentions a medical report. There is

no medical report in this case. There are medical

reports that may have been submitted in the past

23 claims, that may be—that she’s referencing.

Those were all, again, claims that were specifically

denied by the Industrial Commission not taken

up on appeal, and are forever barred.

Those—those medical reports are not in—were not

part of this record that would be before you, and

it certainly was not part of the record that was

part of the Industrial Commission in these three

claims.

App.l08a

So you have these three claims, then there’s an

appeal to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas

Court. And under the statutory framework, that

is a de novo appeal.

And so there is no record that comes up with either

the trial court from the Industrial Commission

record.

So, again, the chemical exposure, we do not believe

is a specific enough condition to even allow a

claim for. It fails to identify the body part at

issue, and it fails to identify the nature of any

alleged disability.

Same thing with bilateral handVwrist injury. It

does satisfy, I suppose, the body part at issue.

The hands and the wrists, but what—what are

we talking about as far as an injury? A sprain,

arthri—you know, fracture, burns, what type of

injury are we talking about?

So—so we do not believe that a claim could even

had been allowed for those conditions.

And then, finally, as we’ve been talking, there is

no competent evidence in the record, in the file

that would rebut the summary judgment motion

that was filed by United Airlines. Appellant did

not come forth with any Rule 56 evidence to

rebut a properly framed summary judgment

motion. There was no reference to any pleadings,

no depositions, no answers to interrogatories, no

written admissions, no affidavits, no transcripts

of evidence, and no written stipulations of fact

that would rebut the summary judgment motion

filed by United Airlines.

App.l09a

So we—here we believe the record does not contain

any of those, nor is there any sworn testimony

from any medical provider by affidavit or otherwise

which would support appellant’s claims.

And, therefore, based on all four of those reasons,

the res judicata, the non-specificity of the requested

conditions, and the fact that there is no competent

medical evidence to support the claims that are

at issue before you today, we respectfully ask

that you affirm the trial court’s decision.

Thank you.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Thank you very much.

Okay. Ms. Alessio, you still have your three

minutes.

MS. ALESSIO: May it please the Court. Safety is top

priority.

With great respect it is the position of the appellant

with the safety duty and responsibility to we,

the people, also in the air aircraft cabin to

reverse the lower court decision based upon the

law and the facts of this case.

Respectfully, the appellant believes that the

appellee breached a legal duty of obligation.

Respectfully, the appellant lacked—excuse me, the

appellee lacked reasonable care to provide personal

protective equipment, PPE, to protect appellant

from chemical inhalation exposure in the aircraft

cabin to avoid substantial aggravation, irritation,

and harm to appellant’s rheumatoid arthritis

requiring to seek medical attention care and

treatment.

App.llOa

The facts as the appellant knows them: One,

ingredients to the chemical air freshener in the

aircraft cabin still state not applicable on the

safety data sheet.

Two, personal protective equipment, PPE, was not

furnished by the appellee to avoid chemical

inhalation exposure in the aircraft cabin.

And three, an independent medical examination,

IME, was never conducted by the appellee. With

respect, even with the appellant’s request for an

IME, it was denied.

The appellant is respectfully requesting to deny

the appellee’s motion for summary judgment

and move this case forward with one hundred

percent transparency of all ingredients to the

chemical air freshener, with all chemical substance

product names with safety data sheets used in

the aircraft cabin because, as both appellant and

appellee agree, safety is top priority.

With great respect, appellant believes products

used to clean, sanitize, disinfect, and air freshen

the aircraft cabin should be made transparent, no

secrets, with complete list of ingredients made

available for a better air quality environment.

With great respect, the question now rests in

your hands. Do you?

A simple prayer for relief is respectfully being

requested to be decided upon at the discretion of

the Court.

Just one small request, please reference Court of

Appeals pagination of record, docket entry

number 1, Exhibit L, pages 1 through 47. This is

App.llla

the story of my life from 2003 to 2019, 16 years.

The appellant’s true-life experience begins on

page 1, dated February 20, 2003, to page 47,

dated October 9, 2019. The authentic credible

medical evidence.

Most Honorable Judge Shawn C. Gallagher, most

Honorable Judge Michelle J. Sheehan, most

Honorable Judge Lisa B. Forbes, I, Christina

Alessio, the plaintiff-appellant, pro se, would like

to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely

for your time today.

With great respect, it has been very meaningful

and a pleasure to be with you today here in this

most amazing, beautiful, historical courtroom,

the Court of Appeals.

Thank you.

JUDGE GALLAGHER: Thank you very much, Mr.

Alessio—Ms. Alessio.

Thank you very much, counsel, too.

Case will be marked submitted.

COURT CLERK: All rise.

(Whereupon, the oral argument was concluded.)

App.ll2a

CERTIFICATE

I, Douglas Bettis, a stenographic court reporter,

do hereby certify that I transcribed the foregoing

transcript to the best of my ability from the electronic

sound recording provided by Ms. Alessio.

I further certify that I am not a relative,

employee of or attorney for any party or counsel, or

otherwise financially interested in this ....

/s/ Douglas Bettis

Stenographic Court Reporter

App.ll3a

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(FEBRUARY 2, 2022)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FOR THE STATE OF OHIO IN AND FOR

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

UNITED AIRLINES - FLIGHT ATTENDANT

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. Unit #589

Bath, Ohio 44210,

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se) and Address

vs.

Case No. CV-21-949578

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

233 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606,

and

BWC/Bureau of Workers’ Compensation,

Administrator, 30 West Spring Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215,

Defendant(s) Appellee(s) and Addresses

App.ll4a

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before: John P. O’DONNELL, Judge.

{ Internal tables omitted }

I, Christina Alessio, declare as follows:

I am the Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se), in the

Above-Entitled Case. I have Personal Knowledge and

Experience of the following Genuine Issues of Material

Fact in Dispute. Summary Judgment must be Denied

and Respectfully, Plaintiff is Requesting Jury Trial.

Plaintiff would Competently Testify there to, at Trial

as Witness, for the Respectful Truth be Told.

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

In Pursuant to Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure.

Rule 56 (G) Affidavits made in bad faith. Plaintiff is

respectfully requesting the review of the appearance

of bad faith made in the Affidavits and Memorandum,

provided with and included in the Attorneys Motion

for Summary Judgment for the Defendant. Examples

Respectfully for Review:

1. Defendant’s “Name” is Mentioned. Plaintiff

Counts 22 Times, making it Very Visually Clear when

Reading the Motion for Summary Judgment, a Direct

Intent and Desire to Sway Influence Toward the

Defendants Way and In their Favor, for the outcome

of the Courts Decision. Plaintiff believes this is the

Direct Opposite of our “Lady Justice”, who shows

Fair, Right and a Just Matter of the Law, a True

App.ll5a

Example and Symbol to Follow for Moral Force in

the Judicial System.

2. The Delay of the Defendants Production of

their Medical Expert Witness and Motion for Summary

Judgment, to the Very Extent of the Date Possible to

File, Friday January 14, 2022. The Ordered date to

submit was by, Saturday, January 15, 2022. JOUR

NAL ENTRY dated 09/13/2021. (EXHIBIT #1.)

3. In the “Closings”, from the Attorney’ or the

Defendant filing (respectfully submitted on January

14, 2022, and part of the record) the Motion for

Summary Judgment, with the two provided Affidavits,

it is written: “Further affiant sayeth naught.”

(Definition: EXHIBIT #2.)

Respectfully, the Defendants Medical Expert

Witness (gave Medical Opinions after reviewing Past

Medical Records and has not yet conducted a Present

Independent Medical Examination for the Facts).

Respectfully, a Medical Doctor and a fellow of the

American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, has no more to say about the Matter before

the Court. Respectfully, Facts Overrule Opinions.

NOTE: December 2, 2020, the Attorney for the

Defendant wrote a letter communicating to the

Plaintiff, “At this time” the Defendant respectfully

declines the request for an Independent Medical

Examination (IME). Respectfully Plaintiff asks, if

not now then when... so to provide the Truth with

Facts, not Opinions? (IME Attorney letter: EXHIBIT

#3.)

With respect, this is about Safety and Health in

the Plaintiffs Work Environment, whereby the Plain

tiffs Duty and Job Responsibility is to ensure a Safe

App.ll6a

Environment. The Defendant has communicated that

there is No Compromise when it comes to Safety,

thereby Requiring all to be Vaccinated with the COVID19 Vaccine. And yet respectfully, “Chemical Expo

sure” that the Defendants Workforce and Customers

are being Exposed to in the Plaintiffs Work Environ

ment, is Not even considered an Interest or taken into

Account, to providing 100% Transparency.

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

Plaintiff believes an Independent Medical

Examination (IME) by the Defendant is necessary, for

the Truth, Facts, Science and Data for the Respectful

Truth be Told. For just these Simple and Genuine

Issues of Material Fact, the Motion for Summary

Judgment must be Denied. The Discovery for the

Truth, has Not Yet been Exhausted and therefore

has Not Concluded. With the Upmost Respect, it

deems apparent that the Defendant is seeking to avoid

the Truth.

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

INTRODUCTION

The Defendant is Plaintiffs Employer.

The Plaintiff is Defendant’s Employee.

The Plaintiffs Job Responsibility is to ensure a

Safe Environment in the Workplace, on the Ground

and in the Air. The Plaintiffs Workplace is the Aircraft

Cabin. Plaintiff is required in Policy and Procedures

to communicate Safety Issues up the Leadership Chain,

App.ll7a

until Resolved. Plaintiff believes in Safety a Top

Priority.

With respect Defendant believes in Safety and

has communicated such, that COVID-19 Vaccines are

a Requirement by All who Work for the Defendant,

stating: “everyone is safer when everyone is vaccin

ated” (EXHIBIT #4.)

Respectfully Plaintiff is asking, what about

“Safety from Chemical Exposures”? Where has the

Defendant been with the Interest in “Safety from

Chemical Exposures” in the Plaintiffs Workplace

Environment, respectfully from the Date of Hire of

August 1998, up to and including October 5, 6, 7, 8,

2019, right before COVID-19 and the PPE Mask

Mandate?

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

No Daily Personal Protective Equipment, in

specific-PPE Masks, were provided from “Chemical

Exposures” in the Plaintiffs Workplace Environment,

by the Defendant in 2019 on October 5th (Claim #19202076), October 6th (Claim #20-194183), October

7th (Claim #20-194185) and October 8th (Claim #20194187) to avoid inhalation of “Chemical Exposures”.

With the Upmost Respect, it deems apparent that

the Defendant is seeking to avoid the Truth.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

“Chemical Exposures” of Defendants approved

Chemical Substance Products (Cleaning, Air-Fresh

ening, Disinfecting, Sanitizing) in the Aircraft Cabin

App.ll8a

are being used without 100% Transparency (Product

Name with Product Safety Data Sheet) to All

Occupants, in Plaintiffs Work Environment. A Safety

and Health Issue has consistently been communicated

to the Defendant due to my Job Responsibility, up to

and including each and every one of the 23 Individual,

Unnecessary Substantial Aggravation to Plaintiffs

Health from “Chemical Exposures”, Personal Experi

ences from 2010 to 2019. No Protective Measures of

Personal Protective Equipment, in specific-PPE Masks,

were given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant to avoid

inhalation of “Chemical Exposures” which resulted in

Unnecessary Substantial Aggravation to Plaintiffs

condition of Rheumatoid Arthritis. With the upmost

respect, it deems apparent that the Defendant is seek

ing to avoid the Truth.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), provided Plaintiff with a letter to sue on

April 18, 2017. Respectfully, the EEOC could not certify

that the Respondent (Defendant) was in compliance

with the statutes. A Federal Question, needing

answered to this very day with an ongoing Global

Pandemic. Is the Defendant in compliance with the

statutes using Chemical Substance Products inside

the Aircraft Cabin? (-NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS-,

EXHIBIT #5.)

With respect to the EEOC, without the knowledge

of compliance to airborne and contact with “Chemical

Exposure” in the Plaintiffs Work Environment which

is Global, a thoughtful and meaningful question:

Could this Global Pandemic possibly have been avoided

with 100% Transparency?

App.ll9a

NOTE: Full Disclosure and for the Record with

the EEOC, Plaintiff has a present Charge of Discrim

ination at the EEOC, due to the Defendants COVID19 Vaccine Mandate (Defendant’s Vaccine Orders).

Respectfully, Plaintiff is presently experiencing

ongoing discrimination and harassment under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff has an

Approved Religious Exemption from the COVID-19

Vaccine from the Defendant, however, the Plaintiff

has been placed on an Unpaid Leave of Absence

Indefinitely, since November 16, 2021. The Reasonable

Accommodation requested by the Plaintiff to the

Defendant, was to wear PPE-Masks and perform

Temperature Checks. This was the Defendants protocol

before there was a COVID-19 vaccine. Respectful

question: Should the Defendant have allowed the

Plaintiff to work before there was a COVID-19 Vaccine?

Plaintiff was considered an “Essential Worker”,

dedicated and loyal, never missed a day of work from

the very beginning of COVID-19, and is presently

being punished for my faith due to the Defendants

Vaccine Mandate. Plaintiff has not made a paycheck

from the Defendant since, scheduled hours worked

on November 13, 2022. If the Defendant does not

compromise on Safety in the Plaintiffs Work Environ

ment, where has the 100% Transparency to the

“Chemical Exposure” been? Respectfully, as of today

with an ongoing Global Pandemic, where is the Trans

parency to the “Chemical Exposure”?

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC),

referenced in the Ohio’s BWC Law book (Chapter

2.2, EXHIBIT #6) and respectfully as understood,

App.l20a

communicates not only is the Defendant Obligated to

the Plaintiff, to provide a safe workplace with equip

ment to protect from harm (Chemical Exposures), it is

also considered a Violation of Specific Safety Require

ment (VSSR), when such equipment (available for daily

work use-Personal Protective Equipment PPE-Masks)

are not provided. The Defendant failed to provided

and protect the Plaintiff from “Chemical Exposures”.

Claim #19-202076, VSSR Staff Hearing was allowed,

though the claim had already been denied. (RECORD

OF PROCEEDINGS: EXHIBIT #7.) With the upmost

respect, it deems apparent that the Defendant is

seeking to avoid the Truth.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) also requires the Defendant to provide a

Safe and Healthy Work Environment and to abide by

29 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 1910.1200

(EXHIBIT #8), providing Hazard Communication

Training and Education with best practices to avoid

Injury on the Job. As Plaintiff understands, while

OSHA still has No Indoor Air-Quality Standards, the

Defendant is still required to uphold Hazard Commu

nication Training and provide a Safe and Healthy

Work Environment.

NOTE: Full Disclosure and for the Record, an

OSHA Complaint regarding “Chemical Exposures” in

the Workplace has been filed.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

Executive Branch wanted to see everyone vaccinated

asking OSHA to mandate Employers with more than

App.l21a

100 Employees be required to get the COVID-19

Vaccine. Respectfully, Plaintiff would like to see OSHA

have Review of and Certify Indoor Air-Quality Stan

dards of all Products to “Chemical Exposures” in the

Workplace. Plaintiff believes this is a High Priority

due to the Fact People have been Wearing Masks for

approximately 2 Years Now. Plaintiff believes, with

No more “Chemical Exposures”, we will have less

Health Crisis.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

117th CONGRESS, Lesislative Branch has not

yet respectfully, provided a “Certificate of Compliance”

communicating that the Defendant is in compliance

with the Federal Rule of Law. Whereby, Federal Law

Forbids Hazardous Materials onboard the Aircraft.

(49 U.S.C. 5124, EXHIBIT #8, page 6.) A Federal

Question: Is the Defendant in Compliance with the

Statutes using “Chemical Substance Products” inside

the Aircraft Cabin? Respectfully, a “Certificate of

Compliance” is necessary to Duly Confirm that the

Defendant is in Fact following the Rule of Law.

Respectfully Especially Now, from the beginning of

“15 Days to Slow the Spread” (EXHIBIT #9) in

March of 2020, with the Airborne COVID-19 Virus,

to this very date in February of 2022, with an ongoing

Global Pandemic and Vaccine Mandate.

NOTE: With respect,

Environment is Global.

the Plaintiffs Work

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

(SCOTUS) Judicial Branch (Case No. 19-395). Plain

tiff respectfully submitted just months prior to COVID-

App.l22a

19, a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, on

September 19, 2019. Respectfully Requesting an

Answer to a Federal Question, with National and

Global Significance. A Federal Question: Is the

Respondent (Defendant) in Compliance with the

Statutes using Chemical Substance Products inside

the Aircraft Cabin?

January 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs Petition for Re

hearing was Denied and with Respect, the Federal

Question Needs to be Answered.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

January 20-21, 2020, CENTERS FOR DISEASE

CONTROL (CDC) and Prevention, confirms the First

Coronavirus COVID-19 Case in the UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA, and activates its Emergency Response

System. (CDC Museum/COVTD-19 Timeline: EXHIBIT

#10.)

10. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS, District Hearing

Officer communicates in Reference Claim That the

issue is not res judicata. (EXHIBIT #11.)

11. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS (INTERLOCUTO

RY CONTINUANCE ORDER) VSSR STAFF HEAR

ING), Staff Hearing Officer communicates the need

for federal regulations regarding air quality and the

use of cleaning products in airplanes for the safety/

good of the airlines workers and the public at large.”

(EXHIBIT #12.)

App.l23a

Respectfully, what are we breathing? Is “Chemical

Exposure” harming our Health?

12. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

DEFENDANTS CHICAGO PREMISE HEALTH

CLINIC: October 8, 2019, communicates Plaintiffs

Diagnosis: “Inhalation exposure Z77.098”. (EXHIBIT

#13.)

13. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFUL MEDICAL WIT

NESSES/SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PART OF THE RECORD:

Filed July 7, 2021

Marcie A. Groesbeck, M.D. (PCP).

Ali Askari, M.D (Rheumatology).

Keith Novak, M.D. (PCP).

M. Vielhaber, M.D. (Allergy).

Eli Silver, M.D. (Immunology).

Raymond S. Hong (Rheumatology).

Susan Nedorost, M.D. (Dermatology).

Rallis M. Rajan, M.D. (Rheumatology).

Thomas E. Rench, M.D. (Emergency Services).

10. Jeff Kirschman, M.D., M.S., (Chief, Occupa

tional Medicine).

11. Lorraine K. Doyle, M.D. (Hand Surgeon).

12. Joseph C. Armao, M.D. (PCP).

13. Alicia Christy, P.A. (Urgent Care).

App.l24a

PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFUL MEDICAL WIT

NESSES and PART OF THE RECORD:

Filed November 29, 2021

1. Tim—(Industrial Hygienist) for the Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFUL MEDICAL WIT

NESSES and PART OF THE RECORD:

Filed December 6. 2021

Patty Koyl, C-N.P.

Kevin Trangle, M.D. (Toxicology).

Eileen McNeely, PhD., M.S., R.N. (Health

Study).

Judith Anderson, Industrial Hygienist (Air

Safety, Health and Security Department,

AFA-CWA, AFL-CIO).

Jeff Kirschman, M.D., M.S., (Chief, Occupa

tional Medicine).

14. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

UNDER OATH TRANSCRIPT/COURT REPORTS:

Filed July 7. 2021 (Unpublished Books on filing date.)

1. SUBPOENA RECORDS, Staff Hearing

Officer Debbie Nitzsche, January 30, 2018.

(Transcript 39 pages, Errata 1 page.) Reference

Claims: 15-859117, 15-863145, 15-863147.

2. VSSR STAFF HEARING, Staff Hearing

Officer Debra Lynch, February 18, 2021.

(Transcript 15 pages, Errata 1 page.) Reference

Claim: 19-202076.

App.l25a

3. VSSR STAFF HEARING, Staff Hearing

Officer Jim Bartko, May 21, 2021. (Transcript 49

pages, Errata 3 pages.) Reference Claim: 19-202076.

4. DISTRICT HEARING, District Hearing

Officer Bill McKinley, March 5, 2021. (Transcript

57 pages, Errata 2 pages.) Claim Numbers: 20194183, 20-194185, 20194187.

5. STAFF HEARING, Staff Hearing Officer

Oleh Mahlay, April 15, 2021. (Transcript 65 pages,

Errata 3 pages.)

Claim Numbers: 20-194183, 20-194185, 20-194187.

UNDER

OATH

REPORTS:

TRANSCRIPT

COURT

Filed July 7. 2021 (Published Books on filing date.)

1. AMERICA, THE JURY.

DISTRICT HEARING, District Hearing Officer

Michael A. Brown, April 19, 2016. (Transcript 65

pages.) Reference Claim: 16-807292.

2. AMERICA, THE JURY.

STAFF HEARING, Staff Hearing Officer L.K.

Kovach, May 31, 2016. (Transcript 53 pages.) Reference

Claim: 16-807292.

3. AMERICA, THE JURY — First Sequel.

District Hearing Officer T. Steele, April 20,

2018. (Transcript 83 pages, Errata 1 page.)

Reference Claim s: 15-859117, 15-863145, 15-863147,

15-863147, 16-816266, 16-816267.

4. AMERICA, THE JURY — First Sequel.

Staff Hearing Officer Clement Rogers, July 30,

2018. (Transcript 84 pages, Errata 3 pages.)

App.l26a

Reference Claim #s: 15-859117, 15-863145, 15-863147,

16-816266,16-816267.

5. AMERICA, THE JURY — Second Sequel.

District Hearing Officer William Heine,

February 2, 2019. (Transcript 101 pages, Errata 4

pages.) Reference Claim #; 16-113538.

6. AMERICA, THE JURY — Second Sequel

Staff Hearing Officer Oleh Mahley, March 27,

2019. (Transcript 102 pages, Errata 3 pages.)

Reference Claim: #16-11358.

7. AMERICA, THE JURY — Third Sequel.

District Hearing Officer Hugh Corrigan,

October 30, 2020. (Transcript 66 pages, Errata 2

pages.) Reference Claim: #19-202076.

8. AMERICA, THE JURY — Third Sequel.

Staff Hearing Officer Michael Dobronos,

January 22, 2021. (Transcript 62 pages, Errata 3

pages.) Reference Claim: #19-202076.

15. Genuine Issue of Material Fact

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT’S, AFFI

DAVIT’S

1). MEDICAL EXPERT WITNESS OPINION

The Medical Doctor for the Defendant commu

nicates that the Plaintiff has a pre-existing condition

of chronic severe Rheumatoid Arthritis. Respectfully,

how can a Medical Doctor be an Expert Witness on

this Case having only reviewed past medical records

from 2010 to 2019. and not be interested in getting

the Facts from the Plaintiffs present Health Condition

in 2022, by providing a present Independent Medical

Examination (IME)? Plaintiffs last in person visit

App.l27a

with the Rheumatologist is now iust shy of 2 years

ago. February 6, 2020. (EXHIBIT #14.)

With the upmost respect, it deems apparent that

the Defendant is seeking to avoid the Truth.

NOTE: SAFETY DATA SHEET communicates a

Disclaimer from the Manufacturer assuming No

Responsibility for Personal Injury caused by the

product. Plaintiffs First Aid Procedures are not an

option in the Work Environment. Ingredients are also

a Trade Secret, withheld (N/A) to a “CHEMICAL”

Air-Freshener in the Plaintiffs Work Environment,

whereby there is a Federal Law against Hazard

Materials in the Work Environment. Respectfully, No

alternate Protective Measure were given to avoid

“Chemical Exposure” by the Defendant. The Chemical

Substance Product causes irritation. Medical attention

is to Treat Symptomatically. (EXHIBIT #15.)

DEFINITION OF IRRITATION. (EXHIBIT

#16.)

DEFINITION OF RHEUMATOID ARTH

RITIS. (EXHIBIT #17.)

DEFINITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPON.

(EXHIBIT #18.)

EXAMPLE WITH CONCERNING INTER

EST: CLOROX DISINFECTANT WIPES (EXHIBIT

#8, pages 7-23) Safety Data Sheet communicates

under the EPA Statement that the product is a

Pesticide Chemical Product. On the back of the

product label it reads: “PRECAUTIONARY STATE

MENT: HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC

ANIMALS.”

App.l28a

2). PARALEGAL EMPLOYEE with LAW FIRM

of the ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

a) First Report Of Injury (FROI) as written

by the Plaintiff: “10/ 5-8 2019”. BWC commu

nicated each Date of Injury needs to be filed

separately, and respectfully has been provided by the

Defendant’s January 14, 2022, filing.

b) C-86 as written by the Plaintiff in the

Defendants filing, is not the latest filing with

the BWC: The updated Correct C-86 forms are on

the BWC site, written by the Plaintiff and are being

respectfully provided for the record. (EXHIBIT #19.)

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

CONCLUSION

Respectfully, the Defendant has failed to follow

the Matter of Law with an Obligation to Provide and

Protect with Daily Personal Protective Equip

ment (PPE-Masks) from “Chemical Exposures” in the

Workplace Environment, causing a Substantial

Aggravation to Plaintiffs Rheumatoid Arthritis. Res

pectful Lesson Learned: Personal Protective Equip

ment should always be allowed and to be worn when

needed, in specific but not limited to-PPE Masks, to

avoid any and all Inhalation or Contact with

Chemical Exposures.

“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE-Masks)”

are now allowed by the Defendant as well as an

ongoing required Federal Mandate, in specific, to the

Aircraft Cabin. Respectfully, Chemical Exposures =

Harm. Air-Quality is not being taken Seriously enough.

App.l29a

Respectfully, since the PPE approval by the

Defendant to protect from the Chemical Exposure in

the Plaintiffs Work Environment, there has been No

Substantial Aggravation to Plaintiffs Rheumatoid

Arthritis with Protection. (Key: The Proper PPE.) In

Closing, the above Statements of Genuine Issues of

Material Fact have been set here before the Court. The

Plaintiff is without doubt and for certain, respect

fully requesting for the Court to Deny Summary

Judgment and Directly Proceed to Trial by Jury, for

the Respectful Truth be Told.

I, Christina Alessio, Do Hereby Declare that the

Foregoing to be Accurate and True to the Best of My

Ability on the 2nd Day of February 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se)

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

(330)-338-7052

App.l30a

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR

THE STATE OF OHIO IN AND FOR

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CV-21-949578

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro

se), is filing Caption: MEMORANDUM IN OPPO

SITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, with the Clerk of Courts

at the Ohio Cuyahoga County Court of Common

Pleas. And on the same day 2nd of February, 2022,

Plaintiff has mailed a copy to each of the Defendants

listed below, by U.S.P.S., Priority Mail.

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd, for United Airlines. Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713)

Melissa A. Ebel (0087826)

Lindsey K. Self (0099647)

100 E. Broad Street, #2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 564-1445

Fax: (614)280-1777

Ohio Bureau of Workers* Compensation

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Section

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Telephone: 216-777-8025

Fax: 866-467-3572

App.l31a

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se),

United Airlines

Flight Attendant

Date: 2/2/2022

App.l32a

ADDENDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(FEBRUARY 7, 2022)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FOR THE STATE OF OHIO IN AND

FOR CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CHRISTINA ALESSIO,

UNITED AIRLINES - FLIGHT ATTENDANT

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. Unit #589

Bath, Ohio 44210,

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se) and Address

Case No. CV-21-949578

Judge: John P. O’DONNELL

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

233 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606,

and

BWC/Bureau of Workers’ Compensation,

Administrator, 30 West Spring Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215,

Defendant(s) Appellee(s) and Addresses.

App.l33a

ADDENDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, Christina Alessio, declare as follows:

I am the Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se), in the

Above-Entitled Case. Plaintiff believes there is a

moral and legal obligation with the knowledge of

typographical errors, that an addendum is necessary

for accuracy and the record.

YOUR HONOR and with great respect, MAY IT

PLEASE THE COURT:

Please accept the Plaintiffs ADDENDUM for

Accuracy and the Record. The MEMORANDUM IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT*, was filed by the Plain

tiff at the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,

Clerk of Courts on February 2, 2022, and has 6

typographical errors.

Page 6: Date Reads, November 13, 2022. Cor

rect Date is: November 13, 2021.

Page 12: Claim Number Reads, 20194187. Cor

rect Number: 20-194187.

Page 12: Claim Number is typed twice, 15-163147.

Page 12: Date Reads, February 2, 2019. Cor

rect Date is: February 7, 2019.

Page 13: Claim Number Reads, 16-11358. Cor

rect Number: 16-113538.

Page 13: Number of Pages Reads, 66. Correct

Number of Pages: 57.

App.l34a

YOUR HONOR and with great respect,

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

The Plaintiff Pro se, is respectfully resubmitting

the pages above with a line through the typographical

error and handwriting the correction. Plaintiff initials

are in the margin of the page beside the line cor

rected, for confirmation.

I, Christina Alessio, Do Hereby Declare that the

Foregoing to be Accurate and True to the Best of My

Ability on the 7 Day of February, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se)

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

(330)-338-7052

[...]

App.l35a

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR

THE STATE OF OHIO IN AND FOR

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CV-21-949578

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro

se), is filing Caption: ADDENDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, with the Clerk of Courts at the Ohio

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. And on the

same day 7 of February 2022, Plaintiff has faxed a copy

to each of the Defendants, respectfully listed below.

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)/Appellee(s):

Eastman & Smith Ltd, for United Airlines. Inc.

Mark A. Shaw (0059713)

Melissa A. Ebel (0087826)

Lindsey K. Self (0099647)

100 E. Broad Street, #2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 564-1445

Fax: (614)280-1777

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Dave Yost (0056290) Ohio Attorney General

Zena B. Elliott (0056156) Assistant Attorney General

Workers’ Compensation Section

State Office Building - 11th Floor

615 West Superior Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Telephone: 216-777-8025

Fax: 866-467-3572

App.l36a

/s/ Christina Alessio

Plaintiff-Appellant (Pro se),

United Airlines

Flight Attendant

Date: 2/7-22

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

State of OHIO

County of CUYAHOGA

Before me, a Notary Public in and for said state,

personally appeared

/s/ Christina Alessio

who acknowledged that he/she/they did sign the

aforementioned instrument as their free act and deed.

Witness my hand and official seal this date:

/s/ Jonathan Ross

Notary Public, State of Ohio

My Commission Expires 6/17/2026

Optional Description of Document

Type/Title of Document Addendum in opposition of

Defendants motion for summary Judgment.

Document Date: 2/7/2022 Number of Pages 6

Additional Signers_____________________

App.l37a

EXHIBIT 3

LETTER FROM DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

ATTORNEY ON APPELLANT’S REQUEST

FOR (IME) INDEPENDENT MEDICAL

EXAMINATION

(DECEMBER 2, 2020)

EASTMAN & SMITH LTD.

Attorneys at Law

Established 1844

Mark A. Shaw

Attorney at Law

Direct Dial: 614-564-1441

mashaw@eastmansmith.com

100 E. Broad Street, Suite 2100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: 614-564-1445

Facsimile: 614-280-1777

December 2, 2020

Christina Alessio

1970 N. Cleveland Massillon Rd.

Unit 589

Bath, OH 44210-5330

Re: BWC Claim No. 19-202076

Our File No: 1871-221220

Dear Ms. Alessio:

I am writing in response to your voicemail

messages and your fax of November 24, 2020. You have

requested United Airlines schedule an independent

App.l38a

medical examination with Dr. Erickson. At this time,

United Airlines respectfully declines that request. I

would direct your attention to the November 24,

2020 letter from David Sievert, Supervisor for the

Ohio BWC Self-Insured Department indicating United

Airlines is not required to schedule an examination

with Dr. Erickson. I am enclosing a copy of that letter

for your convenience.

Very truly yours,

EASTMAN & SMITH LTD.

/s/ Mark A. Shaw

MAS:jrm

enclosure

App.l39a

EXHIBIT 4

QUOTE FROM UNITED AIRLINES CEO,

SCOTT KIRBY ON VACCINES

r/9,;«we have ho greater respoh$fbll/£y

f^VQnnfl to v°u and your colleagues than to

®wa^jsS?

r«.

iuk*

■,VI

«ftov, VMrrco hi

IB8

All EMPLOYEES jcaysi

tji^LtixnV,1;^. Effigy

{Transcription}

EMPLOYEE VACCINE MANDATE

United Airlines

.. we have no greater responsibility to you and

your colleagues than to ensure your safety when

you’re at work, and the facts are crystal clear:

Scott Kirby, United Airlines CEO

CORONAVIRUS: THE LATEST . . .

UNITED AIRLINES MANDATING VACCINES

FOR ALL EMPLOYEES

App.l40a

everyone is safer when everyone

is vaccinated*"

Bcon *»Bv,;uHirc6

CK WftCRAVlRas 1HL LfilfS I?

^Mwnocco

<U~ ,3«S'r

tnro AMES MANDATING VACCINES FOR AU. EMPLOYEES fc&fiii

Sw *>"T7....... ----------- -

TS . n

EMPLOYEE VACCINE MANDATE

United Airlines

... everyone is safer when everyone is vaccinated.”

Scott Kirby, United Airlines CEO

CORONAVIRUS: THE LATEST . . .

UNITED AIRLINES MANDATING VACCINES

FOR ALL EMPLOYEES

App.l41a

EXHIBIT 6

OHIO WORKERS* COMPENSATION LAW

2.2 EMPLOYERS* OBLIGATION

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law

Around 1700, English courts developed the

principle of vicarious liability, under which certain torts

of the servant were imputed to the master. 1 Applying

this principle, “the act of a servant is the act of his

master.”2 Although the principle was potentially expan

sive, the common law courts eventually so limited the

employer’s vicarious liability that most work-related

accidents went uncompensated, leaving the burden on

the party least able to bear it—the injured worker.3

§ 2.2 Employers’ Obligations

Even without any judicial limitations, employers

from the outset owed only specified minimum obliga

tions to their employees:

(1) The duty to provide a safe workplace;

(2) The duty to provide safe appliances, tools,

and equipment to perform the work;

(3) The duty to warn workers of dangers the

employees might not reasonably be expected

to perceive;

(4) The duty to provide a sufficient number of

fellow servants; and

(5) The duty to make and enforce rules that

would promote employee safety.4

Even under these limited obligations, the common

law did not make the employer an insurer of worker

App.l42a

safety; employers were liable only for their provable

and injurious failure to exercise reasonable care.5

This restrictive scope of employer liability was

predicated upon an amalgam of suspect economic

theories—the liquidity of labor, bargaining equality,

and worker knowledge of employment risks and

opportunities. 6 Society chose to disregard entirely the

economic compulsion that gave employees the Hobbesian choice of starvation or equally dangerous employ

ment elsewhere. Even when the employee could prove

the employer had breached some specific duty, common

law courts managed to limit or foreclose recovery by

applying one or more of the “unholy trinity of common

law defenses”—contributory negligence, the fellow

servant rule, and the doctrine of assumption of risk.7

[...]

11 Lord Raymond’s Reports 739.

2 PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS (4th ed. 1971).

3 Report of Ohio Employer’s Liability Commission, pt. 1, XXXVXLIV (1911).

4 PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS, 526 (4th ed. 1971).

5 Id.

6 PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS (4th ed. 1971).

7 Id. at 80.

App.l43a

EXHIBIT 7

VSSR RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

(MAY 21, 2021)

Ohio Industrial Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Claim Number: 19-202076

MO-ACC-SI-COV

Claim Heard: 19-202076

PCN: 2202791 Christina M. Alessio

20-194183

20-194185

20-194187

-Ref

CHRISTINA M. ALESSIO

1970 N CLEVELAND MASSILLON RD UNIT

BATH OH 44210-5330

Date of Injury: 10/05/2019

Risk Number: 20005372-0

This claim has been allowed for:

This matter was heard on 05/21/2021 before

Staff Hearing Officer Jim Bartko, as provided for in

R.C. 4121.35(B)(3) on:

IC-8 App For Additional Award For VSSR - Non

Fatal filed by Injured Worker on 10/05/2020.

Issue: 1) VSSR - APPLICATION SPECIFIC

ENOUGH

Notices were mailed to the Injured Worker, the

employer, their respective representatives and the

App.l44a

Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compen

sation not less than 14 days prior to this date, and

the following were present at the hearing:

APPEARANCE FOR THE INJURED WORKER:

Ms. Alessio

APPEARANCE FOR THE EMPLOYER:

Mr. Shaw; Ms. Duncan (court reporter)

APPEARANCE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR:

No Appearance

The Staff Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction

to address the Injured worker’s 10/05/2020 IC8-9

Application for VSSR Award. This claim (19-202076)

was denied in a 01/27/2021 Staff Hearing Officer

order that was administratively affirmed. The Injured

Worker did not appeal this decision to court. The

Staff Hearing Officer notes that the Injured Worker

was informed at the 02/18/2021 Staff Hearing Officer

hearing “that without an allowed Workers’ Compen

sation claim, the IC8-9 Application would fail.”

A Motion for Rehearing may be filed within thirty

(30) days of the receipt of this order in accordance

with the provisions of Ohio Adm. Code 4121-3-20(E).

Jim Bartko

Staff Hearing Officer

Electronically Signed by Jim Bartko

Typed By: kjb

Date Typed: 05/21/2021

Findings Mailed: 05/25/2021

App.l45a

The parties and representatives listed below have been

sent this record of proceedings. If you, are not an

authorized representative of one of the parties, please

notify the Industrial Commission.

Claim Number: 19-202076

19-202076

Christina M. Alessio

1970 N Cleveland Massillon Rd Unit

Bath OH 44210-5330

Risk No: 20005372-0

United Airlines, Inc.

233 S Wacker Dr

Chicago IL 60606-7147

ID No: 1440-80

Sedgwick Claims Management Services

PO Box 14661

Lexington KY 40512-4661

ID No: 1649-80

Eastman & Smith Ltd

PO Box 10032

Toledo OH 43699-0032

ID No: 21692-91

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease

200 Public Sq Ste 1400

Cleveland OH 44114-2327

App.l46a

ID No: 4039-05

BWC - SVIU Section

30 W Spring St

Columbus OH 43215-2216

BWC, LAW DIRECTOR

NOTE: INJURED WORKERS, EMPLOYERS, AND

THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MAY

REVIEW THEIR ACTIVE CLAIMS INFORMATION

THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

WEBSITE AT www.ic.ohio.gov. ONCE ON THE

HOME PAGE OF THE WEB SITE, PLEASE CLICK

ICON AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR

OBTAINING A PASSWORD. ONCE YOU HAVE

OBTAINED A PASSWORD, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE

TO ACCESS YOUR ACTIVE CLAIM(S).

App.l47a

EXHIBIT 8

FEDERAL LAW 49 U.S.C. 5124

“Notice to travelers”

Transportation of hazardous materials

Federal law forbids the carriage of hazardous

materials aboard aircraft, in your luggage or on your

person. A violation can result in 5 years imprisonment

and penalties of $250,000 or more (49 U.S.C. 5124).

Hazardous materials include explosives, compressed

gases, flammable liquids and solids, oxidizers, poisons,

objects with a sharp point or sharp edge, corrosives,

and radioactive materials.

Household

Cleaners

App.l48a

EXHIBIT 18

DEFINITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPON

WIKIPEDIA

Chemical weapon

Article

This article is about the type of munition. For the

concept in biology, see Chemical defense.

A chemical weapon (CW) is a specialized munition

that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm

on humans. According to the Organisation for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), “the term

chemical weapon may also be applied to any toxic

chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury,

temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through

chemical action, Munitions or other delivery devices

designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled

or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves.”[2]

en.rn.wikipedia.org

App.l49a

EXHIBIT F

IRREGULAR OPERATION REPORT

#207207

(AUGUST 14, 2021)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FOR THE STATE OF OHIO IN AND FOR

CUYAHOGA COUNTY

CHRISTINA ALESSIO, UNITED AIRLINESFLIGHT ATTENDANT

1970 N. Cleveland-Massillon Rd. Unit #589

Bath, Ohio 44210

Plaint

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.