|
Employment
Cases:
Immunity from Suit
(Court of Appeals)
To
see the full text of a
case on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site, click on the case name. To
return to the Case Index, click here.
| Prewitt v. Alexson Servs., Inc. (8/25/08) |
| Employer is not entitled to immunity under R.C. 4123.74 from lawsuit resulting from rape by a co-employee. |
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bressler
Court: Twelfth Appellate District |
|
| Rogan v. Brown (10/23/06) |
| Definition
of employee in R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c) only applies to determination of
construction employment issues where there is a question of whether an
individual is an independant contractor, not to determination of
whether an individual is a loaned employee. |
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Young
Court: Twelfth Appellate District |
|
| Saunders v. Holzer Hosp. Found. (3/4/08) |
| Employer in negligence suit not entitled to summary judgment based on
workers' compensation immunity where evidence did not establish that
there was no issue of fact as to whether injury during physical therapy
sessions conducted at employer-hospital's factility occurred in the
course of and arising out of employment. |
Vote: 2-0, 1 not participating
Opinion by: Per Curiam
Court: Fourth Appellate District |
|
| Sellers v. Liebert Corp. (8/10/06) |
| R.C. 4123.74 does not provide a company with immunity from a lawsuit when the company contracted
for the services of the injured worker from a third party which
retained control over, and supervision of, the injured worker. |
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Whiteside
Court: Tenth Appellate District |
|
| Wolf v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. (4/17/08) |
| Worker who was hired and paid by one employer and then contracted out
to a second employer was an employee of the second employer under the
"dual employment" doctrine when the second employer controlled the
worker's day-to-day employment duties; therefore R.C. 4123.74, which
provides an employer which provides workers' compensation coverage with
immunity from a negligence suit applies to second employer. |
Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Deshler
Court: Tenth Appellate District |
|
|
