Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging statutory retaliatory-discharge and common-law wrongful-discharge against Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc. for firing her for reporting suspected abuse or neglect and against Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. for inducing Hospice to fire her. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, concluding, as relevant to this appeal, Plaintiff's retaliatory-discharge claim under Ohio Rev. Code 3721.24 failed because Plaintiff did not report the suspected abuse or neglect to the Ohio director of health. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff’s statutory retaliatory-discharge claim, holding that section 3721.24 does not require an employee or other person to report suspected abuse or neglect to the Ohio director of health in order to be protected from retaliation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an employee who reports suspected abuse or neglect of a long-term-care-facility or residential-care-facility resident is not required to report to the Ohio director of health in order to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under section 3721.24; and (2) in this case, Plaintiff’s reporting the suspected abuse or neglect to Brookdale and to the resident’s children triggered the protection of section 3721.24. View "Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1983, the four fingers of Dennis Varney’s left hand were amputated in a work-related accident. Three fingers were completely reattached and the fourth finger was partially reattached, but the fingers did not regain their full function. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation awarded Varney compensation for the partial loss of use of his four fingers. In 1985 and 1990 two claims were allowed for one-third loss of use of Varney's index finger and for two-thirds loss of use of his other damaged fingers. In 2010, Varney filed a motion for a total loss of use of his index, ring, and little fingers. The Industrial Commission denied the motion. The Court of Appeals granted Varney’s request for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the Commission had applied the wrong legal standard for determining the loss of use of a finger. The Supreme Court reversed and denied the writ, holding that the Commission used the proper standard when examining the medical evidence as it related to the amount of function remaining in Varney’s three fingers and did not abuse its discretion in denying compensation for the total loss of use of those fingers. View "State ex rel. Varney v. Indus. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Appellee was employed by the village of Cardington from 2000 to 2009. When he discovered that someone was discharging a hazardous chemical that was passing through the village’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), Appellee voiced his concerns about the WWTP to the village council. Ultimately, Appellee was instrumental in exposing an automotive-parts manufacturer’s criminal discharge of hazardous chemicals into the public water supply. However, a few months after Appellee reported the problems with the WWTP, the village terminated Appellee for reasons disputed by the parties. Appellee sued the village, claiming that he was fired in violation of Ohio’s whistleblower statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for the village. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Appellee engaged in whistleblowing under the whistleblower statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellee did not satisfy the procedural requirements of the whistleblower statute, and therefore, Appellee did not qualify for whistleblower protection. View "Lee v. Cardington" on Justia Law

WTS Acquisition Corporation purchased Ameritemps, Inc. and then transferred the assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, RFFG, LLC. RFFG continued operating the business under the Ameritemps name. The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation notified RFFG that it had determined that RFFG was a successor employer for workers’ compensation purposes and that it intended to calculate RFFG’s workers’ compensation premium rate based on Ameritemps’ experience rating. RFFG filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Bureau had abused its discretion when it determined RFFG to be the successor in interest to Ameritemps. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that the decision of the Bureau was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. View "State ex rel. RFFG, LLC v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp." on Justia Law

Relators, an employee of Precision Directional Boring, LLC and his wife, commenced an action in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against Precision and Gary Cole, a coworker at Precision. Cole, a resident of Cuyahoga County, was the only party with a connection to that forum. The Cuyahoga County court granted Precision’s motion to transfer for improper venue and transferred the case to the Medina County Common Pleas Court. The case was subsequently transferred back to Cuyahoga County and then again to Medina County. Relators then filed a complaint in the court of appeals seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel the Cuyahoga County court judge to vacate that court’s transfer orders and adjudicate the underlying action on the merits. The appellate court granted Relators’ motion, concluding that venue was proper in Cuyahoga County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cole’s status as a nominal party prevented Relators from establishing a clear legal right to the vacation of the transfer orders in Cuyahoga county or a clear legal duty by the Cuyahoga County court judge to perform that act, and an appeal would provide an adequate remedy. View "State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall" on Justia Law

Appellee, a home health nurse who provided in-home health-care services to clients of Visiting Nurse Association of Mid-Ohio (VNA), was injured in a vehicle collision while she was traveling to the home of a patient. Appellee had decided to transport her children and two friends to a mall on her way to the patient’s home. The Industrial Commission allowed Appellee’s claim for a neck sprain. VNA appealed. The trial court granted summary judgment for VNA, concluding that Appellee was on a personal errand at the time she was injured. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the accident and injury arose out of and occurred in the course of Appellee’s employment. Specifically, the court determined that although Appellee had intended to drop her passengers off at the mall, she had the dual intent to travel to her patient’s home, and when she was injured, she had not yet diverted from that path. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctrine of dual intent or dual purpose is not recognized in Ohio for purposes of determining eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. Remanded. View "Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Ass’n of Mid-Ohio" on Justia Law

Appellant brought an original action for a writ of mandamus against his former employers, the Summit County prosecutor and the County (collectively, the County), alleging that the County did not compensate him in accordance with established pay scales for his position and seeking payment of “an amount to cover back pay losses.” The court of appeals denied the writ and also denied Appellant’s motion for sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s right to back pay was not so clear as to justify issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, and therefore, the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant failed to carry his burden of proof; and (2) the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for sanctions. View "State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh" on Justia Law

After Employee was terminated from his position as a construction-equipment operator with the City of Cleveland, the collective-bargaining unit for construction-equipment operators employed by the City sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City Civil Service Commission to conduct a termination hearing before a neutral referee. The appellate court denied the writ, concluding that Employee had no clear legal right to a termination hearing, that the Commission had no clear legal duty to provide Employee with a hearing before a neutral referee, and that Employee had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Employee had a clear legal right to a hearing to challenge his termination; (2) the City was under a clear legal duty to appoint a referee to conduct a hearing; and (3) a writ of mandamus was the proper remedy because Employee had no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Claimant was terminated from her employment for violating the written attendance policy in her union contract after she was injured at work. Thereafter, Claimant filed for temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation for her work-related injury. The Industrial Commission concluded that, per State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., Claimant’s termination was a voluntary abandonment that barred payment of TTD compensation. Claimant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the evidence supported the Commission’s finding of voluntary abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimant failed to establish that the Commission abused its discretion when it denied her request for TTD compensation. View "State ex rel. Parraz v. Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant, his employer, signed a written employment agreement detailing the terms of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff later ceased working for Defendant, believing he had been fired. Defendant, however, believed that Plaintiff had resigned. Plaintiff’s termination became the subject of binding arbitration. The arbitration panel concluded that Plaintiff had been terminated for reasons other than cause and ordered Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff “to the position he held prior to his wrongful termination.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) specific performance is not an available remedy for breach of an employment contract unless it is explicitly provided for in the contract or by an applicable statute; and (2) the arbitration panel in this case exceeded its authority by holding otherwise, as the contract clearly did not entitle Plaintiff to reinstatement. Remanded. View "Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas" on Justia Law