Doing Business In Ohio Some Good News For Pennsylvania Employers DD - 09/06
Defense Digest
Ohio - Workers' Compensation
Doing Business In Ohio Some Good News For Pennsylvania Employers
In Caldwell v. Petersburg Stone Company, et al., the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Ohio affirmed summary judgment in favor of Senex Explosives, Inc. (Senex) in a case involving one of its employees temporarily working in Ohio. In Caldwell, Senex employed the plaintiff as a blaster. Senex is a business incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. All of its corporate decisions are made in Pennsylvania, and decisions concerning the activities and location of its employees are also made in Pennsylvania. All major business decisions, including decisions to engage in business in other states, are made in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was also a resident of Pennsylvania. Senex employed the plaintiff, who, in turn, was also a Pennsylvania resident.
In 1998, the plaintiff was sent to Ohio to perform a blasting operation. The operation was partially unsuccessful, and some months later the plaintiff was sent back to Ohio to retrieve undetonated explosives. During the process of retrieving the undetonated explosives, the plaintiff was injured when a bolder unexpectedly dislodged and crushed his right leg. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries. During the retrieval process, the plaintiff was unquestionably in the course and scope of his employment. The plaintiff later applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Several years after the plaintiff's accident, he initiated a lawsuit in Ohio against his employer. In Ohio, an employee may sue an employer at common law if the employee can show that the employer intentionally injured him. Under Ohio law, an intentional injury is defined as one in which the employer required the employee to engage in a dangerous process, procedure or instrumentality that was either certain or substantially certain to cause injury. In Ohio, this forms an exception to the traditional workers’ compensation immunity afforded to employers from common law suits.
After substantial discovery, Senex moved the trial court for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish an intentional tort as defined by Ohio law and that, nonetheless, Ohio law would not govern. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment but refrained from addressing the choice of law issue. Later, the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the employer intentional tort issue, and the matter was remanded to the trial court.
On remand, the trial court granted a second motion for summary judgment on the choice of law theory. The trial court stated in its opinion that Pennsylvania law governs, and since Pennsylvania does not recognize the employment-related intentional tort exception, the plaintiff's claims are barred and must necessarily fail.
The Seventh District Court of Appeals then affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the choice of law issue.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's argument based on statutory grounds. R.C. 4123.54(G) provides as follows:
If an employee is a resident of a state other than this state and is insured under the workers’ compensation law or similar laws of a state other than this state, the employee and the employee's dependants are not entitled to receive compensation or benefits under this chapter, on account of injury, disease, or death arising out of or in the course of employment while temporarily within this state, and the rights of the employee and the employee's dependants under the laws of the other state are the exclusive remedy against the employer on account of the injury, disease, or death.
The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court found that the plaintiff was, indeed, a Pennsylvania resident receiving Pennsylvania workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff was in the state of Ohio only on a temporary basis, and his injuries were in the course and scope of his employment with a Pennsylvania employer. As such, the statute directed that the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff was found in Pennsylvania law, and since Pennsylvania did not provide for an employment-related intentional tort exception, the plaintiff's common law claims were barred.
The Court of Appeals stated the following:
The plain language of this statute resolves the choice of law issue in this case. The injury referred to in R.C. 4123.54(G) is the same injury regardless of the theory of recovery being pursued. Mr. Caldwell had his leg seriously injured. His workers' compensation claim and his claim for an employer intentional tort are merely ways of being compensated, or remedies, for that same injury. R.C. 4123.54(G) does not distinguish between the various theories of recovery available to compensate a person for their injuries. Instead, it provides that the other state's laws shall provide the exclusive remedy to the injury. Thus, when the statute is applied to this case, Pennsylvania law must apply to the Caldwells' claims against Mr. Caldwell's employer, Senex. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Senex, since Pennsylvania does not recognize a claim for an employer intentional tort. The Caldwells' claims to the contrary are meritless.
In Ohio, many employers are forced to defend lawsuits alleging the employer-related intentional tort cause of action. This has caused an increase in costs associated with doing business and employment. However, Pennsylvania employers can find comfort in the decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals when it comes to their employees working in Ohio on a temporary basis. Similar factual scenarios should be resolved in the manner in which the Seventh District Court of Appeals interpreted R.C. 4123.54(G). If an employee is temporarily in Ohio, and he or she is insured under the laws of another state, particularly Pennsylvania, then the employer will benefit from the immunity afforded by Pennsylvania's workers’ compensation laws despite the fact that the injury fortuitously occurred in Ohio.
*Sam is a shareholder in our Akron, OH office. He can be reached at (330) 255-0037 or sgcasolari@mdwcg.com.
