Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Cullen sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company requesting class certification and a declaratory judgment that State Farm failed to disclose all benefits available to policyholders who made claims for damaged windshields. The trial court certified the class, concluding that Cullen and the class satisfied the requirements of Ohio R. Civ. P. 23. The court of appeals affirmed the order certifying the class but reversed the portion of the decision defining the class and remanded with instructions to the trial court to redefine it. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the declaratory relief at issue here was incidental to an individualized claim for monetary damages, Cullen failed to meet the requirement for certification set forth in Rule 23(B)(2); and (2) Cullen failed to prove that this action satisfied Rule 23(B)(3) because individual questions predominated over the questions common to the proposed class. Remanded. View "Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was employed as a laborer by County Saw & Knife. Appellant successfully sought workers' compensation after he developed respiratory problems from his exposure to metal dust. One year later, Appellant applied for an additional award, alleging that Country Saw violated specific safety requirements (VSSRs). The Industrial Commission denied Appellant's application, concluding that County Saw had not violated the VSSRs. The court of appeals denied Appellant's request for a writ of mandamus that would require the Commission to vacate its order denying Appellant's application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he was entitled to an award for a VSSR in addition to his extant workers' compensation benefits. View "State ex rel. Scott v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Employee was injured while in the course and scope of his employment. Employee's industrial claim was allowed for certain injuries. Fourteen years later, Employee successfully requested compensation for the total loss of the functional use of his right arm. Based on the Industrial Commission's award for loss of use, one year later Employee filed a motion for compensation for statutory permanent total disability. A staff hearing officer denied the application. The court of appeals granted Employee's writ of mandamus, concluding that the loss of use of Employee's arm could not be relitigated and that the Commission was bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel to issue the award. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and denied the writ of mandamus, holding (1) the Commission must conduct an independent evaluation of the facts when considering an application for statutory permanent disability under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.58(C) even if a prior award for the same body parts has been given pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 4123.57(b); and (2) the evidence in the record supported the basis for the Commission's decision. View "State ex rel. Coleman v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio" on Justia Law

Employee was involved in a motor-vehilce accident while operating a one-ton dump truck within the course of his employment by Employer. Employee applied for and received benefits for his physical injuries. Employee subsequently requested an additional allowance for posttraumatic-stress disorder (PTSD) that arose contemporaneously as a result of the accident. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) allowed Employee's additional claim. The trial court held that Employee's PTSD was not compensable because it did not arise from his physical injuries. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for a claimant's PTSD to qualify as a compensable injury under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.01(C)(1), the claimant must establish his PTSD was causally related to his compensable physical injuries and not simply to his involvement in the accident; and (2) the court of appeals appropriately determined that the record contained competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court's finding that Employee's physical injuries did not cause his PTSD and that Employee's PTSD was, therefore, not a compensable injury under section 4123.01(C)(1). View "Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co. " on Justia Law

Maria Marusa was driving her car when it was struck by a police cruiser driven by a police officer (Officer). Marusa and her daughter (collectively, Appellants) were injured in the accident. Appellants filed suit against Marusa's insurer (Insurer), seeking damages to compensate for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Insurer answered that it was not obligated to pay damages because even though the policy included uninsured-motorist coverage and the officer was an uninsured motorist, Appellants were not "legally entitled to recover" because Officer was immune under the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Law (OPSTLL). The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the language of the policy unambiguously provides uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage when the insured is injured by an owner or operator who is immune under the OPSTLL. View "Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 1990, Employee was working for Employer when she injured her left ankle. By 2009, Employee had multiple surgeries and was taking approximately fourteen medications. That same year, a Dr. Randolph concluded Employee required no further medical treatment for her 1990 industrial injury and other allowed conditions in her claim and that her current medications were no longer necessary. Employee subsequently filed a motion with the Industrial Commission for the loss of use of her left arm. Based on Dr. Randolph's addendum to his original report, a hearing officer denied Employee's motion for compensation for the loss of use of her arm. Employee filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, which the court of appeals denied, concluding that Dr. Randolph's second and third reports, issued as addenda to his original report, constituted some evidence upon which the Commission could rely to support its decision denying Appellant's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the addenda of Dr. Randolph constituted some evidence to support the Commission's decision to deny Employee's request for compensation for the loss of use of her left arm, the Commission did not abuse its discretion, and the court of appeals properly denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Kish v. Kroger Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured during the course and scope of his employment. Appellant filed a motion for temporary total disability compensation, which a hearing officer granted. The Industrial Commission later terminated temporary total disability compensation based on the report of doctor who stated that the allowed conditions in Appellant's workers' compensation claim had reached maximum medical improvement. Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus, alleging that the Commission acted contrary to law when it relied on the report of the doctor. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the doctor's report constituted some evidence upon which the Commission could rely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the doctor's report was sufficiently reliable to constitute some evidence to support the Commission's decision. View "State ex rel. Coleman v. Schwartz" on Justia Law

K&D Enterprises, through its manager, Mid-America, contracted to purchase an apartment complex. Prior to the closing, K&D Enterprises created a new company, Euclid-Richmond Gardens, and assigned its rights under the purchase agreement to that new company. Euclid-Richmond Gardens hired K&D Group, Inc., a property-management company, to manage the apartment. K&D Group hired former employees of Mid-America and assumed the operations of the complex. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation later conducted an audit and determined K&D Group was the successor in interest to the business operations of Mid-America, a determination that authorized the Bureau to base K&D Group's experience rating, in part, on Mid-America's past experience, which included a large workers' compensation claim. After K&D Group's administrative appeal was denied, K&D Group unsuccessfully filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and issued the writ of mandamus, holding that K&D Group was not a successor in interest for purposes of workers' compensation law, and thus, the Bureau abused its discretion when it transferred part of Mid-America's experience rating to K&D Group. View "State ex rel. K&D Group, Inc. v. Buehrer" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to determined whether Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a permits the use of motor vehicle and gas tax (MVGT) funds to pay those costs of a county's joint self-insurance pool attributable to covering the risk of liability and loss resulting from the operations of a county engineer's highway department. The Supreme Court concluded that Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a authorizes the use of MVGT funds to pay a county's cost of participating in a joint self-insurance pool attributable to covering the risk of liability and loss resulting from the operations of a county engineer's highway department. In so holding, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded. View "Stockberger v. Henry" on Justia Law

Younglove Construction entered into a contract with PSD Development for the construction of a feed-manufacturing plant. When PSD withheld payment, Younglove brought this diversity suit against PSD and three other defendants. In its answer, PSD alleged it had sustained damages as a result of defects in a steel grain bin constructed by Custom Agri Systems, Inc. as a subcontractor. Younglove filed a third-party complaint against Custom Agri Systems, Inc. for contribution and indemnity. Custom turned to its insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, to defend and indemnify it in the litigation. Westfield intervened to pursue a judgment declaring it had no such duty under the terms of its commercial general liability (CGL) policy with Custom. At issue was whether the claims against Custom sought compensation for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under the policy. The district court granted summary judgment for Westfield. On appeal, the federal court of appeals certified questions of state law to the Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that claims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owner are not claims for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under a CGL. View "Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., Inc." on Justia Law