2018 Ohio 4965
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In June 2013 Jeremy Hayes (employee) suffered a severe hand injury; he filed a VSSR (violation of specific safety requirement) application under R.C. 4121.47. Employer Zarbana denied the allegations.
- The Industrial Commission sent a claim-value/settlement letter and referenced the optional IC-10 VSSR Settlement Agreement form to facilitate settlements.
- After a merits hearing but before the SHO mailed a merits decision, the parties executed an IC-10 settling the VSSR claim for $2,000 and submitted it to the commission; a settlement hearing was scheduled and not cancelled.
- The SHO issued two May 12, 2016 orders: (1) a merits order finding a VSSR violation and awarding an additional award; and (2) an order rejecting the $2,000 settlement as neither fair nor equitable and denying the settlement.
- The full commission denied employer’s request for reconsideration, and Zarbana filed a declaratory-judgment complaint in Franklin C.P. seeking a ruling that the commission/BWC lacked authority to review/deny VSSR settlements and that the SHO’s orders were void.
- The trial court dismissed the declaratory action for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed BWC as a party; Zarbana appealed and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment challenging the Industrial Commission's authority to review/approve VSSR settlement agreements | Zarbana: Ohio Constitution and statutes do not explicitly give the commission exclusive authority over VSSR settlements; Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-20(F) is invalid or limited and a declaratory action is proper | Commission/BWC: VSSR jurisdiction (including settlement review) is vested in the commission under Article II, §35 and R.C. chapter 4121; declaratory relief cannot circumvent the exclusive administrative scheme | Court: Trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; VSSR determinations and settlement-review fall within the commission’s exclusive administrative jurisdiction, so declaratory action was improper |
| Whether dismissal of BWC as a party was error | Zarbana: BWC was a necessary party to the declaratory action | BWC: Not an adverse party; no justiciable controversy with employer | Court: Moot because the court correctly dismissed the declaratory action for lack of jurisdiction; second assignment of error held moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. B & C Machine Co. v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio St.3d 538 (1992) (Article II, §35 vests exclusive, final jurisdiction in the Industrial Commission for VSSR matters)
- Jenkins v. Keller, 6 Ohio St.2d 122 (1966) (common pleas courts lack inherent jurisdiction in workers’ compensation cases and have only statutory jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 15 Ohio St.3d 126 (1984) (administrative actions taken beyond authority may be nullities)
- Mid-Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (2007) (standard of review for dismissal of declaratory-judgment actions under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))