Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
2014 Ohio 1383
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Pietro Cristino was declared permanently and totally disabled (PTD) and in 1998 accepted a lump-sum “present value” settlement of $115,000 from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (bureau).
- Cristino later alleged the bureau understated the lump-sum by applying excessive discounts and inaccurate mortality tables; he filed a class action in 2001 asserting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive relief, and later breach of contract in the Court of Claims.
- Ohio courts and the Ohio Supreme Court litigated venue and jurisdiction issues; the Supreme Court held the dispute involved money due under a contract and belonged in the Court of Claims (Cristino I).
- After multiple pleadings and appeals, the Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the bureau on unjust enrichment (statute of limitations) and declaratory relief (no justiciable controversy), and denied transfer back to common pleas; Cristino appealed.
- The Tenth District affirmed: it held the Supreme Court already determined Cristino’s claims sound in law (contract-based), so the Court of Claims had jurisdiction; unjust enrichment was time-barred under the two-year Court of Claims statute; declaratory relief was advisory with no live controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Claims retained jurisdiction after only equitable/declaratory claims remained | Cristino: Court of Claims lost jurisdiction once only equitable/declaratory/injunctive claims remained; those belong in common pleas | Bureau: Supreme Court already ruled claims are contract-based money claims, so Court of Claims retains jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction proper in Court of Claims—Cristino I held claims are legal (contract) in nature |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survived summary judgment / was time-barred | Cristino: Unjust enrichment is equitable restitution (not a money-damages claim) and thus not governed by Court of Claims two-year statute | Bureau: Unjust enrichment is based on same contract conduct and thus accrues and is subject to R.C. 2743.16(A)’s two-year limit | Court: Unjust enrichment is contract-based legal restitution and barred by the two-year statute of limitations |
| Whether declaratory judgment claim should survive summary judgment | Cristino: Seeks declaration that settlements are void and that bureau must release owed PTD amounts; not purely advisory | Bureau: With underlying monetary claims dismissed as time-barred, no justiciable controversy remains; declaratory relief would be advisory | Court: Declaratory claim is not justiciable—would be advisory—so summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cristino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 118 Ohio St.3d 151 (2008) (holding the dispute involved money due under a contract and belongs in the Court of Claims)
- Santos v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (2004) (recognizing equitable restitution claims and the Court of Claims’ jurisdictional limits)
- Measles v. Industrial Commission, 128 Ohio St.3d 458 (2011) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the state for money damages that sound in law)
- Ohio Hospital Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (1991) (declaratory or injunctive relief ancillary to a money claim permits Court of Claims jurisdiction over entire action)
- Racing Guild of Ohio v. Ohio Racing Commission, 28 Ohio St.3d 317 (1986) (pre-waiver parties could seek declaratory and injunctive relief in common pleas; Court of Claims jurisdictional limits explained)
- Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 77 Ohio App.3d 827 (10th Dist. 1991) (discussing loss of Court of Claims jurisdiction where money-damages claim is not permitted by waiver)