Ferguson v. State (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7844
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Ferguson filed two workers’ compensation claims; the Industrial Commission awarded benefits and Ford (employer) appealed to common pleas court under R.C. 4123.512.
- Although the employer files the appeal, the statute treats the injured worker (claimant) as the plaintiff required to file a petition (R.C. 4123.512(D)).
- Prior Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Robinson, Kaiser) allowed claimants to voluntarily dismiss employer-initiated R.C. 4123.512 appeals under Civ.R. 41(A).
- In 2006 the General Assembly amended R.C. 4123.512(D) to require employer consent before a claimant may dismiss an employer-initiated appeal (the “consent provision”).
- Ferguson filed a declaratory-judgment action challenging the consent provision as violating separation of powers (Article IV, §5(B)), equal protection (state and federal), and due process / due course of law. The trial court and court of appeals struck down the statute; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consent provision conflicts with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (separation of powers) | Ferguson: statute conflicts with Civ.R. 41(A) and intrudes on this Court’s rulemaking power under Article IV, §5(B) | State: R.C. 4123.512 governs a special statutory proceeding and Civ.R. 1(C) makes Civ.R. 41(A) clearly inapplicable | Held: No conflict; workers’ compensation appeals are special statutory proceedings and the consent provision renders Civ.R. 41(A) clearly inapplicable, so no separation-of-powers violation |
| Whether the consent provision violates equal protection (state and federal) | Ferguson: treats similarly situated plaintiffs differently based solely on who initiated the appeal; lacks legitimate purpose | State: classification is rationally related to legitimate interests (preventing improper payments, avoiding delay) | Held: No violation; rational-basis review satisfied because legislature addressed unique incentives in employer-initiated appeals |
| Whether the consent provision violates due process / due course of law | Ferguson: statute improperly restricts claimant’s right to dismiss and thus infringes property/right to pursue claim | State: challenge is substantive, not procedural; statute is rationally related to legitimate interests (prevent delay, protect fund) | Held: No violation; under substantive-due-process rational-basis review the provision is constitutional |
| Remedy / retroactivity and related procedural effect on Ferguson’s underlying consolidated case | Ferguson sought dismissal and declaratory relief; trial court stayed original appeal pending resolution | State: Legislature’s amendment applies prospectively per prior precedent (Thorton) but is valid now | Held: Consent provision upheld; appellate judgment reversing trial court judgment reversed and original appeal stayed as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 361 (held R.C. 4123.512 appeals are tried de novo and claimant is "plaintiff" for Civ.R. 41 purposes)
- Kaiser v. Ameritemps, Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 411 (extended Robinson to Civ.R. 41(A)(1) voluntary dismissals)
- Thorton v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 124 (addressed prospective application of 2006 amendment)
- Price v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 70 Ohio St.2d 131 (civil rule is "clearly inapplicable" when its use would alter the basic statutory purpose of a special proceeding)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (framework for procedural due process; meaningful hearing requirement)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (equal protection allows classifications so long as rationally related to legitimate state interest)
- State ex rel. Sysco Food Serv. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 612 (addressing reimbursement and surplus-account allocations when awards are overturned)
- McCrone v. Bank One Corp., 107 Ohio St.3d 272 (recognizing financial health of workers’ compensation fund as legitimate state interest)