STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., Et Al.
122 N.E.3d 1228
Ohio2018Background
- Stolz, a concrete finisher employed by subcontractor Jostin, was injured on a Messer Construction project where Messer was approved to self-insure under R.C. 4123.35(O).
- Messer operated a contractor self-insurance program that enrolled subcontractors; enrolled subcontractors and the general contractor claimed statutory immunity from tort suits by employees covered by the plan.
- District court granted summary judgment for the general contractor but denied immunity to enrolled subcontractors; this Court earlier held in Stolz I that enrolled subcontractors can receive immunity as part of a single-employer fiction for compensation purposes.
- Stolz amended to allege R.C. 4123.35(O) violated federal and Ohio constitutional provisions; the federal court certified the state-law question whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to an enrolled subcontractor's employee.
- The Ohio Supreme Court limited its review to Ohio constitutional claims Stolz pressed (due course/due process and equal protection) and framed the dispute as whether the statute unlawfully removes tort remedies or denies equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 4123.35(O) violate Article I, §16 (due course of law) by removing tort remedies and jury trial rights? | Stolz: statute deprives employees of preexisting jury-trial and remedy rights without proper process or notice. | Statute: legislature may abolish or modify common-law remedies; workers' compensation replaces tort remedies and provides adequate remedial scheme. | Rejected — jury-trial and right-to-remedy claims fail; no fundamental right infringed; rational-basis review applies and is satisfied. |
| Does R.C. 4123.35(O) violate substantive due process by infringing a fundamental right? | Stolz: loss of tort/jury rights are fundamental and merit strict scrutiny. | Statute: no fundamental right implicated; scheme furthers legitimate interests (minimize litigation, encourage participation, timely compensation). | Rejected — no fundamental-right infringement; statute rationally related to legitimate interests. |
| Does R.C. 4123.35(O) violate procedural due process by failing to give notice of deprivation? | Stolz: employees lacked notice that claims against enrolled subcontractors would be barred. | Statute: issue is statutory interpretation and legislative exercise, not a procedural-deprivation claim. | Rejected — plaintiff challenges statutory construction, not adequacy of governmental procedures. |
| Does R.C. 4123.35(O) violate Article I, §2 (equal protection) by treating workers on self-insured projects differently? | Stolz: unenrolled-project workers are treated differently and disadvantaged. | Statute: classification is rationally related to legitimate objectives (project-level self-insurance parity, reduced litigation, prompt benefits). | Rejected — classification passes rational-basis review and does not violate equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., 146 Ohio St.3d 281, 2016-Ohio-1567, 55 N.E.3d 1082 (Ohio 2016) (construed R.C. 4123.35(O) to treat self-insured general contractor and enrolled subcontractors as single employer for workers' compensation immunity)
- Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 109 Ohio St.3d 539, 2006-Ohio-3257, 849 N.E.2d 1004 (Ohio 2006) (workers' compensation replaces common-law remedy and precludes jury trial for claims subsumed by compensation scheme)
- Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280, 2010-Ohio-1029, 927 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio 2010) (legislative modification of tort remedies upheld where workers' compensation provides adequate alternative)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007) (discussed substantive-due-process framework under Ohio Constitution)
- Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91, 449 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1983) (upheld workers' compensation bar on co-employee tort suits as constitutional)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (explained substantive-due-process concept that some government actions are forbidden regardless of procedures)
- Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1917) (characterized compensation statutes as abolishing common-law recovery and leaving nothing for jury trial)