 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maienza v. Canrad9/20/2000
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Orient Correctional Institution ("OCI") appeals the grant of summary judgment to Christopher Maienza by the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas. OCI argues that, as a matter of law, Maienza is not entitled to participate in the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund ("the Fund") because his injury was not caused by his employment at OCI. We disagree based upon the authority of Donnelly v. Herron (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 425, 429 and Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 18, syllabus. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
Maienza is a correctional officer at OCI. On August 22, 1996, Maienza was training OCI employees on armed self-defense. After finishing the class and clocking out, Maienza went to his car. He drove his car from the parking lot to an access road leading to the public street. While on the access road, he noticed a line of approximately five cars that were sitting on the access road and waiting to turn onto the public street. As Maienza approached this line of cars, he was rear-ended by a car driven by fellow OCI employee Phillip Hoover. Maienza allegedly injured his neck. He claims that he has had trouble sleeping and intermittently suffers from neck pain as a result of the accident.
Maienza pursued a claim through the Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"). After several hearings and appeals, the Industrial Commission denied Maienza the right to participate in the Fund. In 1999, Maienza filed a complaint in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas seeking to participate in the Fund. Maienza and OCI filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Maienza's motion and denied OCI's motion. OCI appeals and assigns the following error:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING MAIENZA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING [OCI'S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
II.
In its only assignment of error, OCI argues that Maienza failed to meet the three-prong "totality of the circumstances" test articulated by the Ohio Supreme Court in Lord v. Daugherty (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 441. OCI asserts that, as a result, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the court finds that the following factors have been established: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, who is entitled to have the evidence construed in his or her favor. Civ.R. 56. See Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66; Morehead v. Conley (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 409, 411. "In reviewing the propriety of summary judgment, an appellate court independently reviews the record to determine if summary judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, we afford no deference to the trial court's decision in answering that legal question." Conley at 411-12. See, also, Schwartz v. Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 806, 809.
The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists falls upon the party requesting summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 294, citing Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988) 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115. The moving party bears this burden even for issues that the nonmoving party may have the burden of proof at trial. Id. "However, once the movant has supported his motion with appropriate evidentiary materials, the nonmoving party may not rely upon the allegations and/or denials in his pleadings. * * * He must present evidentiar
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.
|
|