Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. McKinley
130 Ohio St. 3d 156
Ohio2011Background
- McKinley was injured July 13, 2003, while working; the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) paid medical and compensation benefits.
- McKinley settled with Heritage-WTI, Inc. (the third party) for an undisclosed amount; the settlement did not address BWC’s subrogation lien.
- In 2008, the BWC sued McKinley and Heritage under R.C. 4123.931(G) to recover the full subrogation amount.
- Heritage movd to dismiss, arguing the BWC’s claim was derivative and time-barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court dismissed; the Seventh District revived it, holding R.C. 2305.07 (six-year) applied, not the two-year limit.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that the BWC’s claim under R.C. 4123.931(G) is an action upon a liability created by statute, subject to six-year limitations, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 4123.931(G) create an independent right of recovery? | McKinley/BWC: independent right; six-year limit applies. | Heritage: typical subrogation; two-year limit applies. | Six-year limitations apply; independent right found. |
| What statute of limitations governs a statutory subrogee’s R.C. 4123.931(G) claim? | Six-year under R.C. 2305.07 for liability created by statute. | Two-year limit for derivative/subrogation claims. | Six-year statute governs. |
| Was Sullivan raised and preserved as a limitations defense? | BWC could argue Sullivan exemption; not preserved here. | Waived since not raised in trial court; six-year applies regardless. | BWC waived Sullivan argument; not necessary to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groch v. General Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes subrogation statutes and limitations context)
- Com v. Ohio, 183 Ohio App.3d 204 (Ohio App.3d 2009) (independent statutory subrogee right exists under 4123.931)
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 2004) (recognizes separate collection/retention under post-Holeton context)
- Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co., 92 Ohio St.3d 115 (Ohio 2001) (subrogation constitutional history; basis for independent right theory)
- Chemtrol Adhesives Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1989) (two-year limitations for derivative subrogation in insurance context)
- McAuliffe v. W. States Import Co., Inc., 72 Ohio St.3d 534 (Ohio 1995) (six-year limitations for liability created by statute where no statute specifies)
- Kozar (Ohio App. Dist. v. Dept. of Human Servs.), 99 Ohio App.3d 713 (Ohio App.2d 1995) (subrogation statute analysis distinguishing independent rights)