In August 2009, Shaun Armstrong sustained minor physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident while in the scope of his employment. The other driver, who plowed into the back of Armstrong’s truck, was killed.

Armstrong’s workers’ compensation claim was allowed for neck and back injuries. He also sought an allowance for PTSD, which the Industrial

As we have previously discussed, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) has traditionally taken an aggressive position in finding that a business purchasing all or part of another business is responsible for the predecessor entity’s workers’ compensation risk, frequently resulting in an increase in premiums and penalties for the purchasing entity.
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Again Reins In BWC On Successor Liability

n Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2012-Ohio-5317, the Ohio Supreme Court held last week that protective gloves and sleeves are “personal protective items” that an employee controls and not equipment safety guards for purposes of stating a cause of action under Ohio’s intentional tort statute, which provides an exception to an employer’s workers’ compensation immunity.
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Holds that Employee Not Wearing PPE Did Not Amount to a Deliberate Removal of an Equipment Safety Guard and Could Not Establish an Intentional Tort Claim

On June 9, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., in which the Court expanded the scope of workers’ compensation retaliation protection to include employees who are injured on the job but have not yet filed an actual workers’ compensation claim.
Continue Reading Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc.: Ohio Supreme Court Expands Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Protection

On June 27, 2008, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) Board of Directors unanimously approved the first phase of a long-term plan that will transition to a new split experience rating method for calculating premium rates that is designed to cushion the premium blow that state-funded employers frequently receive as the result of a

On March 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Appellate District struck down the portion of Ohio’s Tort Reform Act that created a heightened standard for employees bringing intentional tort claims against their employers. Specifically, Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., Case No. 07-CO-15 (7th Dist. March 18, 2008), was the first appellate decision addressing the constitutionality of this heightened standard, and it found the standard improper.

Normally, an employee who suffers a workplace injury cannot file a lawsuit but must, instead, seek compensation under Ohio’s workers’ compensation system. Proof that the employer’s conduct was intentional, however, allows the employee to go around the workers’ compensation system and file a lawsuit for damages. 

Continue Reading Intentional Tort Amendment Found Unconstitutional