2015 Ohio 181
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Bryan Craft was awarded permanent total disability (PTD) workers' compensation in the 1990s and later received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits.
- BWC periodically inquired in the early 1990s and found Craft ineligible for Disabled Workers' Relief Fund (DWRF) because combined benefits exceeded the entry level.
- Craft turned 65 on December 28, 1999, at which time his SSD ceased and he became eligible for DWRF under the statutory formula.
- BWC did not notify Craft or Ford (self-insured employer) of DWRF eligibility until November 7, 2012, and then paid DWRF benefits plus $121,442.86 in back payments covering Dec. 1, 1999–Nov. 3, 2012.
- BWC billed Ford for the full amount; Ford appealed administratively and then filed this mandamus action seeking to limit reimbursement to a two-year lookback (R.C. 4123.52) or, alternatively, to bar recovery by laches because of BWC delay.
- The magistrate and the Tenth District denied relief, holding R.C. 4123.52’s two-year limit does not apply to DWRF retroactive awards and laches did not bar recovery; the court adopted the magistrate's decision and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ford) | Defendant's Argument (BWC/Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4123.52's two-year limitation bars recovery of DWRF back payments older than two years | R.C. 4123.52 limits retroactive compensation to two years, so Ford should not be required to reimburse BWC beyond two years | DWRF is statutorily distinct from workers' compensation awards, payable without application; R.C. 4123.52 does not limit DWRF back payments | The court held R.C. 4123.52 does not apply to DWRF; Ford must reimburse full retroactive DWRF amounts |
| Whether laches bars BWC from collecting DWRF reimbursements after long delay in notifying employer | BWC’s long delay (and an internal 2005 note) and failure to timely bill or notify Ford excuses or limits Ford’s liability by laches | As a self-insured employer, Ford had responsibility to maintain claims records and pay PTD; both parties had some administrative failures but Ford suffered no legal prejudice; statute places liability on Ford | Laches did not apply; the commission did not abuse its discretion in ordering full reimbursement |
| Whether Ford may challenge calculation methodology or rates used for back award at this stage | Ford raised calculation/rate questions only at oral argument and thus belatedly | BWC used statutory formulas and billing procedures; Ford had earlier procedural remedies | Court declined to consider those newly raised calculation arguments (procedural forfeiture) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Indus. Comm., 1 Ohio St.3d 244 (1982) (Supreme Court held DWRF benefits are distinct from workers' compensation and treated as separate relief)
- Wean, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 52 Ohio St.3d 266 (1990) (upheld that self-insured employers’ obligation to reimburse for DWRF benefits is a "current responsibility" and applied prospectively)
- Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (procedural principle limiting consideration of issues raised too late on appeal)
- Armco, Inc. v. N. Assur. Co. of Am., 99 Ohio App.3d 545 (1994) (12th Dist.) (discussed Thompson and treated DWRF as noncompensation for certain contract/insurance analyses but followed Thompson)
- Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Worthington Custom Plastics, Inc., 109 Ohio App.3d 550 (1996) (10th Dist.) (treated DWRF as "benefits" under reinsurance contracts; did not redefine DWRF under workers' compensation law)
- McHale v. Indus. Comm., 63 Ohio App. 479 (3d Dist. 1940) (older authority on scope of "compensation" discussed but distinguished as predating Thompson and statutory changes)