Hinds v. Muskingum Cty.
2017 Ohio 8212
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Connie R. Hinds sustained two allowed workplace injuries: Jan. 23, 2006 (neck sprain) and July 17, 2007 (neck and thoracic sprain). She died Jan. 4, 2010.
- Her spouse, Mark Hinds, sought death benefits under both the 2006 and 2007 claims; the Industrial Commission granted benefits in both, but directed 2006 benefits be paid per the 2007 order.
- Muskingum County appealed; later litigation produced a September 9, 2016 trial-court journal entry allowing death under the 2006 claim, denying the 2007 claim, and ordering all death benefits processed under the 2006 claim.
- The September 9 entry was signed only by the court (no party signatures) and there was dispute at a subsequent hearing whether all parties (notably BWC) had agreed to the specific terms.
- BWC appealed, arguing the trial court erred by enforcing an unsigned settlement entry that included terms beyond the court’s authority and attempted to bind BWC without evidence of agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hinds) | Defendant's Argument (BWC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly enforced the September 9, 2016 settlement entry | Hinds argued the court should enforce the agreement as the parties (county and plaintiff) reached settlement and the court may sign and enforce a settlement | BWC argued it did not agree to the specific entry, was not a party to the settlement discussions producing that entry, and the entry binds BWC without evidence of assent | Reversed: court erred. No evidentiary hearing or record showing mutual, definite assent to the signed entry; settlement not proven for all parties |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.512 to order prospective/retroactive premium/benefit processing | Hinds' position: (implicit) the court could enforce the agreed settlement terms | BWC contended the entry addressed matters beyond the court's scope (extent of disability and premium-rating/processing) and thus exceeded jurisdiction | Not reached on merits: rendered moot by reversal of the first issue |
| Whether the signed entry was enforceable against BWC | Hinds: entry should be enforced as signed by the court and led to dismissal/settlement | BWC: entry lacked signatures/party approval and included terms BWC never accepted; thus not enforceable | Reversed: entry is not enforceable against BWC absent proof of agreement |
| Whether appellate record may be supplemented with affidavits BWC attached to its brief | Hinds: move to strike those attachments as outside the record | BWC: sought correction under App. R. 9(E) to show record irregularities | Court struck the materials: BWC failed to follow the required App. R. 9(E) procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Noroski v. Fallet, 2 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1982) (settlement agreements analyzed as contracts)
- Continental W. Condominium Unit Owners Assn. v. Howard E. Ferguson, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 501 (Ohio 1996) (settlement agreements are valid and enforceable to terminate litigation)
- Mr. Mark Corp. v. Rush, 11 Ohio App.3d 167 (Ohio Ct. App.) (contract with essential terms is binding)
- Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc., 52 Ohio St.3d 232 (Ohio 1990) (intent to be bound is a factual question for the trier of fact)
- Champion Gym & Fitness, Inc. v. Crotty, 178 Ohio App.3d 739 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (mutual, communicated intention required for binding settlement)
- Klever v. Stow, 13 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court may hold hearing to determine existence of verbal settlement)
- Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1997) (when existence or terms of settlement are disputed, an evidentiary hearing is required)