2021 Ohio 1382
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Cirino received Ohio workers’ compensation benefits via a Chase-issued EBT/debit card and repeatedly paid $5 in teller fees when withdrawing funds.
- He originally sued BWC in Cuyahoga Common Pleas; the Ohio Supreme Court (Cirino I) held the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction and characterized his claims as legal (money-damages) rather than equitable.
- Cirino refiled a class-action complaint in the Court of Claims alleging BWC unlawfully allowed Chase to charge fees and that R.C. 4123.341 and 4123.67 prohibited shifting administrative costs to claimants; he sought legal, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief.
- BWC moved for judgment on the pleadings (Civ.R. 12(C)) as to equitable claims and later moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims; the Court of Claims dismissed the equitable claims, denied Cirino’s partial summary judgment, granted BWC’s summary judgment, and entered judgment for BWC.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: equitable remedies were not available given Cirino I’s characterization of the claims as legal; neither statutory provision created a private right of action; and, therefore, Cirino’s monetary and equitable claims failed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court erred by granting Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal of Cirino’s equitable claims (restitution, unjust enrichment, disgorgement). | Cirino asserted equitable remedies to recover the $5 teller fees imposed under the Chase debit-card program. | BWC argued restitution/disgorgement are remedies (not independent causes of action), Cirino I already characterizes the claims as legal, and no set of facts supports unjust enrichment against BWC because Chase retained the fees. | Court: dismissal proper — claims are legal in substance; equitable remedies unavailable against BWC under these facts. |
| Whether R.C. 4123.341 and R.C. 4123.67 allow a private cause of action for alleged shifting of administrative costs (summary-judgment issue). | Cirino contended these statutes prohibit shifting administrative costs/fees to claimants and thus support a monetary claim against BWC. | BWC argued the statutes do not expressly or implicitly create a private right of action and, even if implied, the evidence does not show improper shifting. | Court: No express or implied private right of action under those statutes; summary judgment for BWC appropriate; Cirino’s monetary claims fail. |
| Whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over declaratory/injunctive claims because a meritorious monetary claim was shown. | Cirino said the established monetary claim supplies jurisdiction for equitable relief. | BWC said monetary claims fail as a matter of law, so jurisdiction over equitable relief is not supported. | Court: Moot/denied — because monetary claims fail, jurisdictional basis for injunctive/declaratory relief is not sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 153 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 2018) (Supreme Court held Cirino’s claims were legal in nature and remanded for lack of common-pleas jurisdiction)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (framework for determining whether a statute creates an implied private right of action)
- Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 2004) (restitution may be available in law and equity; distinguishes remedies)
- Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2002) (statutory violations against the state do not automatically permit private suits absent a private right of action)
- Industrial Commission v. Weigandt, 102 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio 1921) (workers' compensation rights and duties are statutory in nature)
- Industrial Commission v. Kamrath, 118 Ohio St. 1 (Ohio 1928) (same)