 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Interstate Insurance Co. v. G & H Service Center10/31/2005
of Law (1971), Section 185, should have been considered by the trial court." Id. at 552 (Douglas, J., concurring).
{ } Thus, upon review of the Supreme Court's opinion in Thomas, we find that while the Court did not address the specific issues, it clearly relied upon Section 185 for guidance. Additionally, the Fourth District as well as Justice Douglas' reliance upon Section 185 further persuades us that Section 185 is controlling in this situation.
{ } Considering the case sub judice under Section 185, Louisiana law must apply to American Interstate's subrogation claim. As noted above, Section 185 provides,
The local law of the state under whose workmen's compensation statute an employee has received an award for an injury determines what interest the person who paid the award has in any recovery for tort or wrongful death that the employee may obtain against a third person on account of the same injury.
Thus, because Britton's workers' compensation benefits were paid out in Louisiana, Louisiana law must apply.
{ } Having found that Louisiana substantive law applies, we must now determine whether applying Louisiana substantive law to this case is precluded because subrogation has been found to offend the Ohio constitution. In Holten, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Ohio's workers' compensation subrogation statutes were unconstitutional. 92 Ohio St.3d 115. In the case sub judice, the trial court found and Appellees argue that because Louisiana's subrogation statute is similar to Ohio's subrogation statute, the Louisiana statute should also be unenforceable in Ohio.
{ } In White v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 160 Ohio App.3d 503, 2005-Ohio-1785, we found that where the substantive law of another state applies, that state's constitution is also controlling. Id. at 14, citing to Phillips v. Motrim (Dec. 5, 1996), 5th Dist.No. 96-CA-1. Accordingly, we find that in applying Louisiana substantive law, it is the Louisiana and not Ohio constitutional principals that apply. Upon review of Louisiana law, we cannot find that the Louisiana subrogation statutes have been held unconstitutional. As such, we cannot find that American Interstate's subrogation claim is barred by the holding in Holten.
{ } Having found that Louisiana substantive law, including its constitutional principals, applies to American Interstate's subrogation action, both assignments of error are sustained.
{ } Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
CUPP, P.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
|