Trial Practice Cases: Subrogation (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Trial Practice: Subrogation

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.

Brantley v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. (10/14/04)

Injured worker was not entitled to reimbursement of subrogation amount withheld from settlement of claim because self-insured employer’s right to subrogation vested before Supreme Court declared subrogation statute unconstitutional.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rocco
Appellate District: 8

Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Mal-Sarkar (3/19/15)

Probate court, not common pleas court, has jurisdiction over BWC’s claim for subrogation resulting from a wrongful death settlement involving a minor beneficiary.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District: 8

Clark v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (5/1/03)

Injured worker was not entitled to reimbursement of subrogation amount withheld from settlement of claim because BWC right to subrogation vested before Supreme Court declared subrogation statute unconstitutional.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Lazarus
Appellate District: 10

Cristino v. Admr. (2/20/03)

Common Pleas Court lacks jurisdiction over claim for reimbursement of money from BWC; such a claim should be filed in the Court of Claims.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rocco
Appellate District: 8

Jones v. Xenia (10/28/11)

R.C. 2744.05, which exempts political subdivisions from subrogation liability, does not apply to workers’ compensation subrogation under R.C. 4123.931 because R.C. 4123.931 specifically states that R.C. Chapter 2744 does not apply to limit workers’ compensation subrogation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donovan
Appellate District: 2

McKinley v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (9/26/06)

Current R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931, which provide for subrogation, are not unconstitutional.

Vote: 1-1, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge McFarland
Appellate District: 4

McKinney v. Omni Die Casting, Inc. (5/22/17)

Trial court erred in failing to allow BWC to intervene in intentional tort suit because BWC had subrogation right since employer fits within the subrogation statute’s definition of “third party.”

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District:
5

Modzelewski v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. (2/26/03)

Previous subrogation statute (R.C. 4123.93) is unconstitutional.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Carr
Appellate District: 9

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Dernier (1/14/11)

The BWC does not have a subrogation right against a settlement of a third-party action which was made before the claim was allowed.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Singer
Appellate District: 6

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. McKinley (3/31/14)

Third party which settled with injured worker not responsible for BWC’s subrogation interest when BWC had notice of the settlement proceedings even if the settlement agreement did not reference the BWC’s subrogation right.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Waite
Appellate District:
7

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Miller (5/21/13)

BWC entitled to summary judgment on its subrogation claim against an employer who settled potential claim with injured worker without following procedures of subrogation statute because employer satisfied subrogation statute’s definition of “third party.”

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Klatt
Appellate District: 10

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Petty (9/9/16)

Trial court improperly found injured worker was not a “claimant” when granting summary judgment against BWC in subrogation claim because evidence indicated claim had been allowed before settlement was executed.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Yarbrough
Appellate District:
 6

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Williams (12/18/08)

When parties to a third-party settlement do not provide notice to statutory subrogee (either the BWC and attorney general or the self-insured employer) they are jointly and severally liable for the entire claimed subrogation amount.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge French
Appellate District: 10

Payne v. Greater Cleveland R.T.A. (11/26/03)

Injured worker was not entitled to reimbursement of subrogation amount withheld from settlement of claim because self-insured employer’s right to subrogation vested before Supreme Court declared subrogation statute unconstitutional.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Corrigan
Appellate District: 8

Santos v. Admr., B.W.C. (6/6/02)

Jurisdiction over claim for restitution of subrogation funds improperly withheld by BWC was in Court of Claims, not Court of Common Pleas.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Sweeney
Appellate District: 8

Smith v. Jones (12/17/07)

Workers’ compensation subrogation statute does not violate the constitutional rights to due course of law, right to remedy, equal protection, or trial by jury.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Judge Rogers
Appellate District: 3

Yoh v. Schlachter (6/28/02)

After subrogation statute (R.C. 4123.931) declared unconstitutional by Ohio Supreme Court, former subrogation statute (R.C. 4123.93) remains effective. However, former subrogation statute is also unconstitutional.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Handwork
Appellate District: 6