 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hapgood v. Conrad6/28/2002
he workers' compensation fund and not whether he falsified that claim. Appellant argues the previous determination that his employment was not terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation fund or that he was fired for just cause under the collective bargaining agreement differs from the issue presented here.
. The scope of a retaliatory discharge cause of action is limited to the employee proving his or her termination was in direct response to the filing of a workers' compensation claim. See Stevenson v. Pace Eng., Inc. (Nov. 4, 1994), 11th Dist. No. 93-L-165, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 4980. In Hapgood, supra, this court determined appellant was estopped from bringing a retaliatory discharge claim because the arbitrator had determined appellant falsified his workers' compensation claim. The court stated that the issues and facts of both cases were sufficiently intertwined to require the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The facts pertinent to appellant's retaliatory discharge claim were the same facts that the arbitrator considered. This court noted that the actions involved the same subject matter of the falsified workers' compensation claim.
. Appellant submits that whether he filed a false workers' compensation claim does not conclusively preclude his participation in the workers' compensation fund, but might be considered in assessing his credibility. Appellant argues he has the right to present evidence regarding any injury he may have suffered as a result of his employment, perhaps even involving a different injury date or location. Appellant ignores the fact that his application for workers' compensation stated he was injured in January of 1993 when stepping off a fire truck. This is exactly the same claim upon which the other litigation was premised. Appellant's workers' compensation claim involved the same back injury appellant previously, and repeatedly, had stated was not work-related. There is no evidence of any additional injury.
. Whether an employee has filed a fraudulent claim or has been discharged for that misdeed may not be relevant to determining whether that employee has been injured. But those determinations are extremely relevant to the determination as to the cause of such injury . Where, as in this case, the cause of the injury has been determined not to be work related, summary judgment is warranted. In this case, the trial judge correctly made that call.
. Appellant has had more than one day in court in pursuit of his fraudulent claim. No one should be entitled to participate or continue to participate in the commission of fraud on the court.
. For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court's ruling.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|