Employer Cases: Premiums (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Employer: Premiums

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Aaron’s, Inc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (7/20/16)

BWC had authority to retroactively adjust the premiums it charged an employer to correct the employer’s improper classification of its employees, even without evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

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

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

K&D Group, Inc., State ex rel. v. Buehrer (3/6/13)

BWC cannot transfer part of previous management company’s experience rating to a new company which had contracted with the new owner to take over management of an appartment complex because the new management company is not a successor in interest to the previous management company.

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

WFAL Constr., State ex rel. v. Buehrer (6/16/15)

Some evidence supported BWC finding that construction workers were employees, rather than independent contractors, when determining employer’s responsibility for paying 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