Employer Cases: Premiums

(Supreme Court)

Click on the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the decision of a lower court or Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are excluded.

Aaron Rents, Inc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (7/5/11)

Employer: BWC must explain reason why it retroactively (instead of prospectively) reclassified employees so employer can know reason reclassification was retroactive and court can properly review the decision.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Arth Brass & Aluminum Castings, Inc. v. Conrad (12/22/04)

BWC cannot charge employer's risk with cost of medical payments made while appeal is pending, until final decision is reached on appeal.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Continental Hose, State ex rel. v. Swartz (6/13/01)

Date of disability for occupational disease claim determines employer risk assignment. Where date of disability has previously been determined, and risk assigned based on that date of disability, mandamus will not issue because Bureau would be powerless to change risk assignment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Litco Wood Products, Inc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (10/13/99)

Bureau of Workers' Compensation correctly calculated employer's premium rating.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

United Auto Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (6/12/02)

Premium reduction credit given by Bureau of Workers' Compensation to employers in 1999 (giving credit for past premiums) was improper because Bureau did not follow statutory requirement that only permits it to reduce future premiums; credit was also improper because Bureau failed to adopt rule providing for reduction of premiums as required by statute.

Vote: 4-3, 1 concurs in syllabus and judgment only
Opinion by: Douglas

Valley Roofing, L.L.C., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (6/16/09)

When company bought assets of previous company from bank, rather than from previous company, it is not a "successor in interest" for purposes of determining workers' compensation premiums.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/25/02)

Bureau is required to refund assessments improperly collected from employer; provision limiting refund of premiums improperly collected does not apply because assessments and premiums are different things.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Employer Cases: Premiums

(Supreme Court)

Aaron Rents, Inc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (7/5/11)

Employer: BWC must explain reason why it retroactively (instead of prospectively) reclassified employees so employer can know reason reclassification was retroactive and court can properly review the decision.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Arth Brass & Aluminum Castings, Inc. v. Conrad (12/22/04)

BWC cannot charge employer's risk with cost of medical payments made while appeal is pending, until final decision is reached on appeal.

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Continental Hose, State ex rel. v. Swartz (6/13/01)

Date of disability for occupational disease claim determines employer risk assignment. Where date of disability has previously been determined, and risk assigned based on that date of disability, mandamus will not issue because Bureau would be powerless to change risk assignment.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Litco Wood Products, Inc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (10/13/99)

Bureau of Workers' Compensation correctly calculated employer's premium rating.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

United Auto Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (6/12/02)

Vote: 4-3, 1 concurs in syllabus and judgment onlyOpinion by: Douglas

Valley Roofing, L.L.C., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (6/16/09)

When company bought assets of previous company from bank, rather than from previous company, it is not a "successor in interest" for purposes of determining workers' compensation premiums.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/25/02)

Bureau is required to refund assessments improperly collected from employer; provision limiting refund of premiums improperly collected does not apply because assessments and premiums are different things.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Injured at Work?

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 4-3, 1 concurs in syllabus and judgment only
Opinion by: Douglas

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam