 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel International Paper v. Trucinski9/14/2005
alid, nor does it mean that International Paper is paying for something unrelated to claimant's employment. There has been, therefore, no arbitrary deprivation of property.
{ } We are equally unconvinced that the decision defies practical workability - the second prong of Galatis. International Paper alleges dire financial consequences to the workers' compensation system as a whole and to the state's employers as a result of Thomas, but thus far - in the three years since the decision - that has not come to pass. There has been no evidence presented that indicates that injuries of this magnitude occur with sufficient frequency to constitute a significant burden on the system. Our experience bears this out: since Thomas was announced, only four cases invoking it have been decided by this court.
{ } These facts contrast starkly with those in Galatis. Galatis was generated by the court's decisions four years earlier in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116, and Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 715 N.E.2d 1142. Scott-Pontzer held that an uninsured-motorist endorsement that identified "you" as the named insured where "you" was a corporation must extend coverage to an employee outside the course and scope of employment. Ezawa took Scott- Pontzer one step further by, in certain situations, extending that coverage to a family member of the employee.
{ } The practical ramifications of Scott-Pontzer were staggering:
{ } "Scott-Pontzer and its progeny defy practical workability. The multitude of post-Scott-Pontzer issues before this court, the widespread criticism of the decision from other jurisdictions, and the numerous conflicts emanating from the lower courts indicate that the decision muddied the waters of insurance coverage litigation, converted simple liability suits into complex multiparty litigation, and created massive and widespread confusion - the antithesis of what a decision of this court should do. Attorneys are forced to file briefs and appendixes that are several inches thick in an attempt to form a coherent picture out of the post-Scott-Pontzer morass." (Footnotes omitted.) Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, at 50.
{ } There is no such equivalent here. International Paper also accuses Thomas of creating a windfall for claimants because it awards statutory PTD irrespective of a claimant's ability to work - clearly a reference to Trucinski's resumed employment after receiving his prosthesis. International Paper misrepresents Thomas. Statutory PTD has long been awarded irrespective of a claimant's ability to work or even actual employment. See State ex rel. Szatkowski v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 320, 322, 530 N.E.2d 880. Granting PTD compensation despite the ability to work was a choice of the legislature, not a creation of Thomas, and does not support overruling the decision.
{ } International Paper alternatively argues that if not overruled, Thomas should at least be distinguished from this case because, unlike the present case, Thomas involved the arm, not the leg. We disagree. The loss of any extremity is devastating in a way that those who have not experienced such a loss can never truly understand. We decline to engage in a distinction that could be perceived as placing a value judgment on the degree and severity of the loss of an arm or leg. The General Assembly accorded equal weight to both types of losses in R.C. 4123.58(C). We will not disturb that determination.
{ } Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER,
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.
|
|