Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2013 Ohio 5936

Cristino received permanent total disability (PTD) benefits and accepted a lump-sum settlement of $115,000, with final payment on November 2, 1998, and executed releases.
He sued the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation asserting breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, constitutional/statutory violations, declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Court of Claims dismissed several claims; the Tenth District partially reversed, reinstating fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory-relief claims while affirming dismissal of fiduciary-duty and breach-of-contract claims.
Cristino later voluntarily dismissed the fraud claim; the Bureau moved for summary judgment arguing remaining claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2743.16(A).
The Court of Claims held unjust enrichment (a legal claim seeking money) and declaratory relief are governed by Court of Claims jurisdiction and the two-year statute; Cristino’s claims accrued on November 2, 1998, and his original filing in 2001 was untimely to preserve the limitation period.
Cristino’s motion to transfer the action to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas was denied; the Court of Claims retains exclusive jurisdiction and cannot transfer the case based on Cristino’s later dismissal of monetary claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unjust enrichment (and related claims) are time-barred	Cristino argued remaining claims are equitable and thus subject to a 10-year statute	Bureau argued claims are legal in nature, accrued Nov. 2, 1998, and are barred by the 2-year Court of Claims statute	Claims are legal (seeking money), accrued Nov. 2, 1998; unjust enrichment barred by 2-year statute
Accrual date / discovery rule for claims	Cristino contended later discovery or equitable estoppel made claim timely	Bureau relied on undisputed receipt of final payment Nov. 2, 1998 and appellate mandate that accrual was that date	Accrual was Nov. 2, 1998; discovery rule does not save the claim; statute expired before filing
Effect of dismissing fraud on jurisdiction and remedies	Cristino asserted only equitable claims remain and case should be in common pleas (10-year limitation)	Bureau and prior Supreme Court holdings: claims seek money under contract so Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction	Court of Claims retains jurisdiction; remaining unjust-enrichment claim seeks money and is subject to 2-year statute
Motion to transfer to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas	Cristino sought transfer because monetary relief was purportedly abandoned	Bureau opposed; Supreme Court and appellate rulings place these claims in Court of Claims	Transfer denied; Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot transfer on that basis

Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court bound by appellate mandate)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (summary judgment construing evidence against nonmoving party)
Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 118 Ohio St.3d 151 (Supreme Court on jurisdiction/character of relief)
Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 120 Ohio St.3d 142 (Rule 41(A) and dismissal of claims/parties)
Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (Court of Claims jurisdiction over mixed legal/equitable claims)