Cirino v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. (Slip Opinion)
106 N.E.3d 41
Ohio2018Background
- Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) moved benefit payments to an electronic debit-card program administered by Chase; some access methods incurred fees charged by Chase.
- R.C. 4123.311 authorizes BWC to use debit cards; R.C. 4123.341 requires that administrative costs be borne by the state and employers.
- Michael Cirino, a benefit recipient, was enrolled in the debit-card program, incurred repeated teller fees (e.g., $5 per extra teller withdrawal), and filed a class action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas seeking restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief for fees charged.
- BWC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing claims for money damages against the State must be brought in the Court of Claims; trial court and court of appeals held the claims were equitable and common pleas had jurisdiction.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the suit seeks equitable relief (common pleas) or legal relief/money damages (exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Claims) and whether associated equitable claims must also be filed in the Court of Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum: common pleas vs Court of Claims | Cirino: relief is equitable restitution (return of specific funds/statutorily owed benefits); common pleas has jurisdiction | BWC: relief is legal/compensatory (money to make recipients whole); Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction | Held: Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction; claim seeks legal relief |
| Nature of remedy sought (equitable restitution vs legal damages) | Cirino: seeks the specific benefit funds he was entitled to and restitution because BWC shifted administrative costs unlawfully | BWC: seeks compensation for loss caused by Chase fees; not traceable funds in BWC possession, so remedy is compensatory damages | Held: remedy is compensatory/legal (not equitable restitution) because funds at issue were not identifiable in BWC possession |
| Agency / traceability of funds (are fees in BWC’s hands?) | Cirino: Chase acted as BWC’s agent; fees are effectively taken from funds BWC placed with Chase | BWC: even if agency exists, BWC lacks control over Chase’s fee disposition; no evidence BWC holds or can reclaim those specific fees | Held: no showing that specific fees were controllable by BWC; plaintiff cannot trace particular funds to BWC |
| Effect on pendent equitable claims (declaratory/injunctive relief) | Cirino: equitable claims belong in common pleas | BWC: equitable claims arise from same circumstances as legal claim and thus fall within Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.03(A)(2) | Held: declaratory and injunctive claims arise from same facts and must be brought in Court of Claims as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (2004) (a suit seeking the return of specific funds wrongfully collected or held by the state is equitable)
- Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) (distinguishes legal restitution from equitable restitution based on traceability of specific funds)
- Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (1991) (reimbursement of monies withheld pursuant to invalid administrative action is equitable relief)
- Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat’l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, 136 S. Ct. 651 (2016) (if specific funds are dissipated and not traceable, recovery against general assets is a legal remedy)
- Boggs v. State, 8 Ohio St.3d 15 (1983) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over money-damages claims against the state)