 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradley v. Administrator9/25/2000
that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether Tri-State was a non-complying employer and whether his injury occurred in the scope of his employment.
Civ.R. 12(C) provides:
Motion for judgment on the pleadings. After the pleadings are closed but within such times as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
A motion pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) only raises questions of law to be determined by consideration of the pleadings. State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570; Kareth v. Toyota Motor Sales (Sept. 28, 1998), Clermont App. No. CA98-01-011, unreported, at 3, appeal dismissed (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 1502. Dismissal of a cause under Civ.R. 12(C) is appropriate where the court
(1) construes the material allegations in the complaint, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party as true, and
(2) finds beyond doubt, that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Midwest Pride IV, 75 Ohio St.3d at 570, citing Lin v. Gatehouse Constr. Co. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 96, 99.
Thus, Civ.R. 12(C) requires a finding that "no material factual issues exist and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Midwest Pride IV, 75 Ohio St.3d at 570. Unlike a determination under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which allows for review of the complaint alone, review under Civ.R. 12(C) allows all pleadings to be considered. Id. at 569.
R.C. 4123.77 provides:
Employers mentioned in division (B)(2) of section 4123.01 of the Revised Code, who fail to comply with section 4123.35 of the Revised Code are not entitled to the benefits of sections 4123.01 to 4123.94, inclusive, of the Revised Code, during the period of such noncompliance, but are liable to their employees for damages suffered by reason of personal injuries sustained in the course of employment caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the employer, or any of the employer's officers, agents, or employees, and also to the personal representatives of such employees where death results from such injuries, and in such action the defendant shall not avail himself or itself of the following common law defenses:
(A) The defense of the fellow servant rule;
(B) The defense of the assumption of risk;
(C) The defense of contributory negligence. Such employers are subject to sections 4123.37 and 4123.75 of the Revised Code.
Any employer as defined by R.C. 4123.01(B)(2) that fails to pay into the state insurance fund the required annual premiums as mandated by R.C. 4123.35(A) may be found to be a non-complying employer. See Bridges v. Natl. Engineering & Contracting Co. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 108, 115. Only after the Industrial Commission certifies that an employer has established industrial coverage and paid its premium is the employer a "complying employer" as a matter of law, entitled to the benefits of the workers' compensation statutes (R.C. Chapter 4123). Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
In short, if an employer fails to pay contributions to the state workers' compensation fund as required by R.C. 4123.35, that employer may be liable to its employee pursuant to R.C. 4123.77 where the employee is injured in the course of employment, if such injury is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the employer.
Bradley's complaint alleged, first, that Tri-State was a non-complying employer at the time of his alleged injury. Bradley then alleged that his injury occurred during the course of his employment. Howeve
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|