Ohiо Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristy Shaffer et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 13AP-67 (C.P.C. No. 12CV-7292)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
October 15, 2013
[Cite as Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Shaffer, 2013-Ohio-4570.]
(ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Rendered on October 15, 2013
Cooke, Demers & Gleason, LLC, Adam J. Bennett and Andrew P. Cooke, for appellee.
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, LLP, Mark Landes and Aaron M. Glasgow, for appellants.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendants-appellants, Kristy Shaffer and the Franklin County Community Based Correctional Facility (“CBCF“), appeal a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the following reasons, we reverse that judgment in part.
{¶ 2} On June 6, 2012, plaintiff-appellee, Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC“), filed a complaint against defendants. In the complaint, BWC alleged that on November 2, 2009, Shaffer, while in the course and scope of her еmployment with CBCF, caused a car accident, which injured Mary M. Robinson. Like Shaffer, Robinson was also
{¶ 3} Upon payment to Robinson, BWC was statutorily subrogated to the rights of Rоbinson against Shaffer and her employer.
{¶ 4} Defendants answered the complaint. The answer set forth multiple affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations and statutory immunity under
{¶ 5} After answering, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
The statutory subrogation right of recovery applies to, but is not limited to, all of the following:
* * *
(2) Amounts that a claimant would be entitled to recover from a political subdivision, notwithstanding any limitations contained in Chapter 2744. of the Revised Code[.]
{¶ 6} The trial court agreed with BWC. In a judgment dated January 22, 2013, the trial court denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶ 7} Defendants now appeal the January 22, 2013 judgment, and thеy assign the following errors:
I. The Trial Court Erred By Finding That R.C. § 4123.931(H) [sic] Completely Exempts BWC From The Operation Of The Substantive Immunities Set Forth In R.C. Chapter 2744.
II. The Trial Court Erred By Failing To Dismiss BWC‘s Claim Against Appellant Shaffer Pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), As BWC‘s Complaint Alleges Only That Appellant Shaffer Acted Negligently.
III. The Trial Court Erred By Failing To Dismiss BWC‘s Claim Against Appellant CBCF, Which Was Filed After Thе Expiration of the Statute of Limitations Set Forth in R.C. § 2744.04.
{¶ 8} Initially, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Pursuant to
{¶ 9} Although the parties here have failed to raise the issue of whether the January 22, 2013 judgment is a final, appealable order, we may raise that issue sua sponte. State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 544 (1997); Riverside v. State, 190 Ohio App.3d 765, 2010-Ohio-5868, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.). Moreover, we must sua sponte dismiss any appeal that is not taken from a final, appealable order. Id.; Braelinn Grеen Condominium Unit Owner‘s Assn. v. Italia Homes, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1144, 2010-Ohio-2371, ¶ 6.
{¶ 10} Generally, the denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a final, appealable order. Steinbrink v. Greenon Local School Dist., 2d Dist. No. 11CA0050, 2012-Ohio-1438, ¶ 16; Paul C. Harger Trust v. Morrow Cty. Regional Planning Comm., 5th Dist. No. 03-CA-19, 2004-Ohio-6643, ¶ 24; S.O.S. Constr. Industries, Inc. v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 10th Dist. No. 02AP-655, 2003-Ohio-15, ¶ 24. However, “[a]n order that denies a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability as provided in [
{¶ 12} Unlike Shaffer, CBCF did not seek the benefit of an alleged immunity in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It, instead, sought the benefit of the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims agаinst political subdivisions.
{¶ 13} Under
{¶ 14} An appeal from an order denying immunity “is limited to the review of alleged errors in the portion of the trial court‘s dеcision which denied the political subdivision the benefit of immunity.” Makowski at ¶ 7; accord Carter v. Complete Gen. Constr. Co., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-309, 2008-Ohio-6308, ¶ 8. Therefore, our review is limited to whether the trial court erred in denying Shaffer judgment on the pleаdings as argued in the second assignment of error. We are without jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in denying CBCF judgment on the pleadings as argued in the first and third assignments of error.
{¶ 15} By their second assignment of error, defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying Shaffer the immunity afforded to the employees of political subdivisions under
{¶ 16} Pursuant to
{¶ 17} Under
{¶ 18} For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss defendants’ first and third assignments оf error, and we sustain defendants’ second assignment of error. We reverse in part the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and we remand this matter to that court for additional proceedings in accordance with law and this decision.
Judgment reversed in part; cause remanded.
TYACK and O‘GRADY, JJ., concur.