Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
134 Ohio St. 3d 329
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Bennett sought a de novo determination of his right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund under R.C. 4123.512 after his claim was denied; the trial court granted summary judgment on the coming‑and‑going rule.
- The Sixth District held de novo review applies and that remand to the Industrial Commission is inappropriate; it required Bennett to prove injury-related and causation elements at the trial‑de‑novo stage.
- At bench trial the administrator moved for directed verdict, challenging Bennett’s evidence of injury and causal link; Bennett’s proof focused on whether the accident occurred in the course of employment.
- The trial court granted the directed verdict, and the Sixth District affirmed, holding Bennett failed to prove injury-relatedness and causation, given the evidence presented.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address whether a 4123.512 appeal limits the issues to those determined below or requires consideration of all elements de novo; it affirmed the lower courts.
- A dissent argued that Bennett’s injury was conceded and that the case should be remanded for extent of injury determination by the BWC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of de novo review in 4123.512 appeal | Bennett: only issues decided administratively should be considered. | Goodremont’s/BWC: de novo review encompasses all elements; remand not allowed. | De novo proceeding covers all elements of right to participate; remand not permitted. |
| Remand to Industrial Commission permitted | Bennett: trial court should remand for further administrative proceedings addressing injuries. | Administrator: no remand in a de novo 4123.512 appeal. | Remand to IPC is not an option; court must decide de novo. |
| Burden of proof in 4123.512 appeal | Bennett: need not establish injury-related/causation precisely if not addressed administratively. | Bennett must prove injury-relatedness and causal link. | Claimant bears burden to prove all elements of right to participate. |
| Ward v. Kroger applicability | Ward restricts scope to conditions addressed in the administrative order. | Ward is distinguishable; broader de novo scope applies here. | Ward distinguished; this case involves de novo scope of all elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Kroger Co., 106 Ohio St.3d 35 (2005) (scope limited to conditions addressed in the admin order; de novo analysis applied to all elements in 4123.512)
- Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 361 (1998) (recognizes de novo hearing; not a record review; determine right to participate on evidence in trial Court)
- Marcum v. Barry, 76 Ohio App.3d 536 (1991) (remand not allowed; full de novo hearing and determination)
- Oswald v. Connor, 16 Ohio St.3d 38 (1985) (establishes standard for right to participate burden)
- White Motor Corp. v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.2d 156 (1976) (requires showing injury arose out of and in course of employment and causal relation)
- Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 533 (2006) (explains de novo burden in 4123.512 appeals)
- Bent on v. Hamilton Cty. Educational Serv. Ctr., 123 Ohio St.3d 347 (2009) (de novo review and burden in 4123.512)
- White v. Leimbach, 131 Ohio St.3d 21 (2011) (directed verdict; de novo review)
- Aldridge v. LTV Steel Co., 5th Dist. No. 95-CA-0158 (1996) (remand not authorized in 4123.512 context)