Mahle Behr Dayton, LLC v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.

• Decision Date: 03 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-00706JD
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3953
• Parties: MAHLE BEHR DAYTON, LLC., et al. Plaintiffs v. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Defendant
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-3953

MAHLE BEHR DAYTON, LLC., et al. Plaintiffs
v.
OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Defendant

No. 2021-00706JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

October 3, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 11/4/22

DECISION

DALE A. CRAWFORD Judge

{¶1} This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant issued several rebates to employers due to a surplus of earned premiums over losses. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that when Defendant issued the rebates Defendant did not correctly apply the premium rebate formula to the claim loss reimbursements paid by Plaintiffs who participated in the large deductible premium programs. As a result Plaintiffs maintain they incorrectly received smaller rebates than companies that participated in the retrospective rating programs. Plaintiffs bring unjust enrichment and equal protection claims.

{¶2} In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims regarding the 2012 and 2013 rebates are time barred, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a legal claim, Defendant was not unjustly enriched, Plaintiffs' implicit request for a declaratory judgment fails, Defendant is precluded from liability under the discretionary function doctrine, and Plaintiffs' equal protection claims fail because they are not similarly situated to employers participating in the other program and Defendant had a rational basis. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is now before the Court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to Civ.R. 56 and L.C.C.R. 4. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion will be granted.

Standard of Review

{¶3} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

1

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor

{¶4} "[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). A "movant must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C)." Id. "If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied." Keaton v. Gordon Biersch Brewery Rest. Group, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-110, 2006-Ohio-2438, ¶ 15.

{¶5} When the moving party makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings but "by affidavit or as otherwise provided in [Civ.R. 56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party." Civ.R. 56(E). In seeking and opposing summary judgment, parties must rely on admissible evidence and evidentiary material as provided in Civ.R. 56(E). Keaton at ¶ 18. The court must resolve all doubts and construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Pilz v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-240, 2004-Ohio-4040, ¶ 8.

Facts...