 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.3/27/1996
Per Curiam.
Defendants-appellants, the Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and the Industrial Commission of Ohio, appeal the February 1, 1995 order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, Thomas Jeffrey Davis, on his claim to participate in the workers' compensation fund. The Administrator argues that R.C. 4123.54 bars an award of Ohio workers' compensation benefits to Davis because he resided in Kentucky, was employed in Kentucky, and was insured under Kentucky's workers' compensation law at the time of the injury, and that because other genuine issues of material fact remain as to where Davis entered into his employment contract, summary judgment ought not to have been granted. The assignment of error is not well taken.
The uncontradicted evidence establishes that on February 24, 1990, in Hamilton County, Ohio, Davis sustained a herniated cervical disc as a result of an automobile accident in the course and scope of his employment for Cincinnati Door Sales, a Kentucky corporation with offices in Dayton, Kentucky. His employer also maintained a post office address and telephone listing in Springdale, Ohio. The corporation maintained workers' compensation coverage for Davis in Kentucky, but not in Ohio. The majority of the employer's work was conducted at Ohio job sites, and Davis sustained his injury en route to his employer's Kentucky office after completing an eight-hour work day at an Ohio job site.
Davis had worked for his employer full time as a door repair helper between October 1, 1991 and February 24, 1992. Each day he drove to the employer's Kentucky office and received his assignments, the majority of which were at Ohio job sites. According to Davis's affidavit, at the time of his injury he had worked one hundred thirteen and three-fourths eight-hour days in Ohio.
The Industrial Commission denied his claim. On appeal, however, the court of common pleas granted Davis's motion for summary judgment, holding that he had a right to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund. In a document purporting to reach separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court, without weighing the evidence, explained the reasoning behind its granting of summary judgment. See Stanton v. Miller (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 201, 583 N.E.2d 1080 (Civ.R. 52 expressly states that findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in the disposition of a motion for summary judgment).
If a work-related injury occurs in Ohio, it is compensable under the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act unless otherwise prohibited by statute. R.C. 4123.54. Here, the Administrator argues that another paragraph of R.C. 4123.54 permits the denial of coverage. R.C. 4123.54 states:
"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 his dependents 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 his dependents under the laws of the other state are the exclusive remedy against the employer on account of the injury, disease, or death."
The statute does not define "temporarily." Ohio Adm.Code 4121-7-23, captioned "Duties Outside the State," and repealed effective July 1, 1993, provided:
"The industrial commission of Ohio respects extra-territorial right of the workers' compensation insurance coverage of an out of state employer for his regular employees, whose
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|