Holmes v. Crawford Machine, Inc.
134 Ohio St. 3d 303
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Holmes sought workers’ compensation benefits for multiple injuries; the staff officer allowed some claims and denied others, and the jury later found Holmes eligible to participate only for the abrasion of the right fifth finger.
- The trial court awarded Holmes costs and attorney fees incurred on appeal; Crawford Machine challenged the scope of reimbursable costs under R.C. 4123.512(F).
- The Third District reversed, certifying a conflict with precedent on whether costs tied to unsuccessful claims may be reimbursed; this court accepted the certified question to resolve the proper scope of 4123.512(F).
- R.C. 4123.512(F) provides reimbursement for the cost of legal proceedings if the claimant’s right to participate is established on appeal, with attorney fees capped at $4,200, and the statute directs costs to be fixed by the trial judge based on the effort expended.
- The court held that once establishment on appeal occurs, costs must be reimbursed and need not be apportioned by claim/condition, and that the amount should reflect the effort expended rather than the outcome of particular claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether costs are apportioned by claim when right to participate is established | Holmes argues costs tied to unsuccessful claims should not be reimbursed | Crawford argues costs should be limited to successful claims | No; costs are reimbursable based on effort, not per-claim outcome |
| When does the reimbursement trigger arise under 4123.512(F) | Trigger occurs upon establishment of right on appeal for at least one claim | Trigger may be limited to the final determination | Trigger is establishment on appeal; costs related to the appeal are reimbursed based on effort expended |
Key Cases Cited
- Schuller v. United States Steel Corp., 103 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 2004) (reimbursement of costs depends on reasonable necessity to presentation of appeal)
- Kilgore v. Chrysler Corp., 92 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio 2001) (costs fixed by effort expended; reasonable expenses bearing direct relation to appeal)
- Moore v. Gen. Motors Corp., Terex Div., 18 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1985) (legislative purpose to protect claimants from litigation expenses)
- Cave v. Conrad, 94 Ohio St.3d 299 (Ohio 2002) (reasonable deposition and related costs may be awarded as costs)