 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parsons v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation8/31/2004
.Plaintiff-appellant, Raymond Parsons, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio in favor of defendant-appellee, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
.On October 14, 1999, Parsons suffered serious injuries while in the course and scope of his employment. He filed a workers' compensation claim, which the BWC allowed for quadriplegia, complete quadriplegia, neurogenic bladder and neurogenic bowel. The Industrial Commission declared that Parsons was permanently and totally disabled.
.In addition to his workers' compensation claim, Parsons also filed a personal injury action against the person who had caused his injury. Parsons eventually settled this action for $9,750,000. After the settlement, the BWC contacted Parsons and informed him of its subrogation interest in past payments of compensation and medical benefits to him, as well as estimated future values of compensation and medical benefits it would provide to him. See R.C. 4123.931 (version effective November 29, 1995). The BWC demanded $854,159.65 from the settlement to compensate it for benefits already paid and estimated future benefit payments. Ultimately, the parties agreed that Parsons would pay the BWC $775,000 out of his settlement to satisfy the BWC's subrogation interest. On June 12, 2001, the BWC received the $775,000 payment.
.Approximately two weeks after the BWC received Parsons' payment, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 115, in which the court invalidated former R.C. 4123.931 as unconstitutional. Consequently, Parsons requested that the BWC refund his $775,000. The BWC refused, so Parsons filed suit in the Court of Claims against the BWC.
.Because neither party disputed the operative facts, the parties submitted the case for a judgment upon briefs and a joint stipulation of facts. On July 8, 2003, the trial court issued a decision in which it found that prior to the issuance of the Holeton decision, Parsons and the BWC had entered into a settlement agreement regarding the amount of subrogation money the BWC would receive. Thus, the trial court held it could not apply Holeton retroactively, because to do so would impair the BWC's rights under that settlement agreement. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment for the BWC. Parsons appealed this judgment.
.On appeal, Parsons assigns the following errors:
[1.] The Court of Claims erred, as a matter of law, by holding that the Ohio Supreme Court's Holeton ruling did not preclude defendant-appellee from demanding "reimbursement" from injured workers who had successfully secured recoveries from third-party tortfeasors.
[2.] The trial judge erred, as a matter of law, by concluding from the undisputed facts that defendant-appellee is entitled to retain funds that had been collected under the authority of an unconstitutional statute.
.Before we address Parsons' assignments of error, we must determine a more fundamental question: whether the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over Parsons' case. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28. The Santos plaintiffs brought a class action suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the BWC on behalf of individuals from whom the BWC had recovered subrogation monies under former R.C. 4123.931. In their complaint, the Santos plaintiffs sought an order from the trial court requiring the BWC to refund the subrogation monies.
.In response, the BWC moved for dismissal, asserting that the Court of C
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|