 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wissman v. Pro-Fab Industries6/19/2002
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
. Appellant, Pro-Fab Industries, Inc. ("Pro-Fab"), appeals from the decision of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas which granted Appellee, Larry Wissman ("Wissman"), the right to participate in the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund. We reverse.
I.
. In February 2001, Wissman was employed by Pro-Fab. On February 16, 2001, Wissman tripped over the tines of a forklift parked near the doorway of his plant manager's office. He sustained a fracture to his humerus in his left shoulder. Wissman filed a claim with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. His claim was allowed and disallowed at various levels in the hearing process, with the eventual decision being that his claim was disallowed. Wissman appealed to the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 4123.512. The Wayne County Court of Common Pleas found that Wissman's injury was sustained in the course of and arising out of his employment and granted him the right to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund. This appeal followed.
II.
Assignment of Error No. 1
. "The decision of the trial court finding that the plaintiff is entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund of ohio is against the manifest weight of the evidence."
Assignment of Error No. 2
. "The decision of the trial court finding that the plaintiff is entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund of ohio is contrary to law."
. Pro-Fab's two assignments of error are related; therefore, we address them together. Pro-Fab asserts that the trial court erred when it granted Wissman the right to participate in the workers' compensation program. Pro-Fab argues that Wissman was not injured in the course of and arising out of his employment with Pro-Fab. We agree.
. The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts upon which the trial court based its decision. Therefore, Pro-Fab contests only the application of the law. We review a trial court's interpretation and application of a statute on a de novo basis because it presents us with a question of law. See State v. Frazier (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 718, 721, citing State v. Sufronko (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 504, 506. Upon review, an appellate court does not give deference to the trial court's determination. Id. See, also, Tamarkin Co. v. Wheeler (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 232, 234.
. Pursuant to R.C. 4123.01, an employee is entitled to benefits under workers' compensation for an injury received in the course of and arising out of his employment. See R.C. 4123.01(C). The employee must meet both the "in the course of" prong and the "arising out of" prong in order to receive benefits. Fisher v. Mayfield (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 275, 277. When determining whether an injury occurred in the course of employment, courts consider the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Id. An injury arises out of the employment when a sufficient causal connection exists between the injury and the employment. Lord v. Daugherty (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441, 444. Whether a sufficient causal connection exists depends on the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury. Id. In Lord, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth three factors to consider when determining the existence of a causal connection: (1) the proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment; (2) the degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident; and (3) the benefit the employer received from the injured employee
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|