Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office to bring felonious-assault charges against Ronald Collins and Courtney Lykans for injuries that Appellant's infant daughter sustained while she was in their care, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion.After Appellant's daughter sustained life-threatening injuries Lykans and Collins were indicted on third-degree felony counts of child endangering. Lykans pled no contest to the charge, and Collins pled no contest to an amended fourth-degree felony charge of attempting child endangering. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the court of appeals to order the prosecutor's office to file felonious-assault charges and Lykans and Collins. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the prosecutor had a clear legal duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas County Prosecutor's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying U.S. Tubular Products, Inc.'s complaint in mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its decision requesting John Roush's request for an award of additional compensation, holding that the Commission's decision was supported by evidence in the record.Under Ohio Const. art. II, 35, a worker who sustains injuries as a result of her employer's violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) may seek an award of additional compensation. Roush sustained injuries while working at U.S. Tubular, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for numerous conditions. Roush later filed an application for a VSSR award, claiming that U.S. Tubular had violated specific safety requirements set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code. The Commission granted a VSSR award of an additional twenty-five percent in compensation. U.S. Tubular filed a mandamus complaint seeking a writ compelling the Commission to vacate the VSSR award. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's determinations were supported by evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. U.S. Tubular Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered questions certified by the court of appeals in the negative and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Akron General Medical Center (AGMC) on the issue of whether AGMC was liable for a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision, holding that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate.Malieka Evans filed a complaint alleging that she had been sexually abused and assaulted by Dr. Amir Shahideh, one of AGMC's employees, while seeking treatment at AGMC. The trial court granted summary judgment for AGMC based on Evans's failure to have filed a cause of action against Dr. Shahideh and her inability to establish the doctor's civil liability or criminal guilt. The court of appeals reversed and certified to the Supreme Court two questions of law. The Supreme Court held (1) a plaintiff need not show that an employee has been adjudicated civilly liable or has been found guilty of a crime in order for the plaintiff to maintain a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claim against an employer; (2) the statute of limitations for such a claim is not affected by the statute of limitations governing the underlying legally wrongful conduct of the employee; and (3) summary judgment was improper. View "Evans v. Akron General Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request brought by Manor Care, Inc., a self-insured employer, for a writ of mandamus ordering the Bureau of Workers' Compensation to reimburse it for lump-sum permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation payments, holding that Manor Care did not establish a clear legal right to relief.Manor Care made lump-sum payments under protest to two injured workers in order to correct its long-term underpayment of their permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation. Manor Care then requested reimbursement from the Disabled Workers' Relief Fund, contending that Manor Care's underpayment of PTD compensation should be offset by the Bureau's corresponding overpayment of relief-fund benefits to the same employees, for which Manor Care had reimbursed the Bureau as part of its annual assessments. The Bureau denied the request. Manor Care then filed this action alleging that the Bureau abused its discretion by requiring Manor Care to, in effect, double-pay the purported PTD underpayment to the employees and refusing to reimburse Manor Care for the PTD underpayment amount. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Manor Care identified no authority granting a clear legal right to the relief it sought. View "State ex rel. Manor Care, Inc. v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of a teacher and school officials on Plaintiffs' complaint alleging that Defendants were reckless in addressing the alleged bullying of a kindergartener by another student, holding that Defendants did not act in perverse disregard of a known risk.In granting summary judgment for Defendants, the trial court found that they were immune from liability because the family had failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Defendants disregarded a known risk or obvious risk of harm to the kindergartener. The court of appeals reversed, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to whether Defendants had been reckless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendants did not act in perverse disregard of a known risk, and therefore, Defendants' conduct was not reckless. View "A.J.R. v. Lute" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate an award of medical-service reimbursement to Diana Garringer for a right reverse total-shoulder arthroplasty, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion.Garringer injured her right shoulder while working for Omni Manor. The next year, the Commission granted Garringer's request for medical-service reimbursement for a reverse total-shoulder arthroplasty. Omni Manor requested a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to vacate its order granting the reimbursement request. The court of appeals denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission correctly applied the standard set forth in State ex rel. Miller v. Industrial Commission, 643 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1994); and (2) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in considering certain evidence. View "State ex rel. Omni Manor, Inc. v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Plaintiffs' appeal from the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint on the basis that a dismissal without prejudice based on forum non conveniens is not a final, appealable order, holding a trial court's order dismissing a case without prejudice based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not a final, appealable order pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2505.02.Plaintiffs were obligated under Kentucky law to pay workers' compensation benefits to a worker who was injured at Defendant's facility. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against against Defendant in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, seeking to recover the amount that they had been required to pay. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that the action should be filed in the Circuit Court in Grant County, Kentucky. The trial court dismissed the case, without prejudice, based on forum non conveniens. The court of appeals dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal on the basis that a dismissal without prejudice based on forum non conveniens is not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the dismissal in this case was not a final, appealable order. View "Crown Services, Inc. v. Miami Valley Paper Tube Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that when an at-will employee consents, without objection, to the collection of his or her urine sample under the "direct-observation method," the at-will employee has no cause of action for common-law invasion of privacy.Plaintiffs were former and current at-will employees of Defendant. Defendant had a workplace substance-abuse policy requiring employees to submit a urine sample for drug testing under the direct-observation method, under which a same-sex monitor was required to accompany the employee to the restroom to visually observe the employee produce the urine sample. While Plaintiffs did not know at the time they consented that their urine samples would be collected under the direct-observation method they proceeded with the drug test under the direct-observation method without objection. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendant violated their privacy by requiring them to submit their urine samples under the direct-observation method. The trial court granted judgment for Defendant, concluding that Plaintiffs had not stated a valid claim for invasion of privacy. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs' invasion-of-privacy claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a limited writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its decision denying the request of Paul Digiacinto for permanent total disability (PTD) compensation and to hold a new hearing on Digiacinto's PTD application, holding that the Tenth District erred in holding that the Commission's failure to mention an ALJ's earlier decision granting Digiacinto's request for social security disability benefits in its order was an abuse of discretion.In 2001, Digiacinto suffered a workplace injury. In 2003, an ALJ granted Digiacinto's request for social security disability benefits. In 2015, Digiacinto filed a third application for PTD compensation. The Commission denied the application, concluding that Digiacinto had voluntarily abandoned the workforce, rendering him ineligible for compensation. Digiacinto then brought this mandamus action seeking an order for the Commission to vacate its order denying his PTD application. The court of appeals granted a limited writ, holding that the Commission's failure to mention the ALJ's decision in its order was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission was not required to discuss the ALJ's decision; and (2) the ALJ's decision was not key to the success or failure of the PTD application. View "State ex rel. Digiacinto v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim, holding that Plaintiff's dismissal did not jeopardize the public policy identified by the trial court and that Plaintiff did not satisfy the jeopardy element of her wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim.Plaintiff alleged that her employer wrongfully terminated her employment because she had challenged the employer for failing accurately to report her earnings to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that dismissing employees under such circumstances would not jeopardize the stated public policy manifested in the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 4141 and that section 4141.27 sets forth an adequate remedy for violating the public policy embodied in the statute. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by determining that Plaintiff could not satisfy the jeopardy element and that the statutory remedies contained in Chapter 4141 was insufficient to protect Plaintiff's interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the remedies in Chapter 4141 are sufficient to protect society's interest in the public policy that employers accurately report employees' pay and tips and the lack of a personal remedy for the dismissed employee does not jeopardize the stated public policy. View "House v. Iacovelli" on Justia Law