Ramos v. Canton
| Decision Date | 11 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021 CA 00076 |
| Citation | 198 N.E.3d 1009 |
| Parties | Domingo A. RAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Fresh Mark CANTON, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
SAMUEL E. MARECELLINO III, SANFORD A. MEIZLISH, 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210, Columbus, OH 43219, For Plaintiff-Appellant.
MARY E. ULM, 4580 Stephen Circle NW, Suite 300, Canton, OH 44718, For Defendant-Appellee.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Domingo A. Ramos, appeals the June 16, 2021 judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee, Fresh Mark Canton, barring his claim for death benefits.
{¶ 2} On December 16, 2017, appellant was working for appellee when he suffered an injury resulting in near instantaneous death.
{¶ 3} On December 5, 2019, Guillermina Cortez Juarez, who identified herself as appellant's girlfriend, submitted a C-5 application with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation seeking death benefits on behalf of appellant's four surviving children.
On December 26, 2019, appellee, as a self-insuring employer, denied certification of the claim, citing the application was filed past the statute of limitations.
{¶ 4} On April 3, 2020, appellant's application was considered by the Industrial Commission. The claimant was described as Domingo A. Ramos, c/o Maria Alonzo Cortez, Child, Oficina Del Migrante. Maria Alonzo Cortez is listed as appellant's minor child, but the authority of Maria Alonzo Cortez to pursue this action was not questioned in the matter below and will not be addressed by this court. The appellate briefs refer to appellant as "Ramos" despite his death and to avoid confusion, we will follow suit.
{¶ 5} In a decision mailed April 9, 2020, the district hearing officer denied the application for death benefits, finding the application was filed beyond the statute of limitations of one year [ R.C. 4123.84(A) ]. Appellant had argued the statute of limitations was extended by appellee's failure to file the report described in R.C. 4123.28(A), wherein an employer "shall keep a record of all injuries and occupational diseases, fatal or otherwise, received or contracted by his employees in the course of their employment and resulting in seven days or more of total disability" and within a week after acquiring knowledge of the death, "a report thereof shall be made in writing to the bureau of workers’ compensation." Failure to file the report extends the statute of limitations. Appellee had argued R.C. 4123.28 was inapplicable to the facts of this case because appellant did not have any days of total disability because of his death; therefore, it was not required to file the report. The hearing officer agreed with appellee and found the statute of limitations was not extended.
{¶ 6} A staff hearing officer reviewed the matter and by decision mailed June 6, 2020, affirmed the district hearing officer's decision and denied the application. A request for reconsideration was denied.
{¶ 7} On August 25, 2020, appellant appealed the decision to the Court of Common Pleas. Each party filed motions for summary judgment. By judgment entry filed June 16, 2021, the trial court granted summary judgment to appellee, finding appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
{¶ 8} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶ 9}
I
{¶ 10} In the sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment and in granting appellee's cross-motion for summary judgment. We disagree.
{¶ 11} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment motions, we must stand in the shoes of the trial court and review summary judgments on the same standard and evidence as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). Our standard of review is de novo. Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314, 2002-Ohio-2220, 767 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 24. A de novo review requires an independent review of the trial court's decision without any deference to the trial court's determination. Brown v. County Commissioners of Scioto County, 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153 (4th Dist.1993). "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." Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶ 12} The focus of this case is the interpretation of R.C. 4123.28, which is also subject to de novo review as a question of law. Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Petro , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1125, 2006-Ohio-1205, 2006 WL 648851, ¶ 23. While we owe no deference to the trial court's decision, we are mindful of the Supreme Court of Ohio's position "it is well settled that courts, when interpreting statutes, must give due deference to an administrative interpretation formulated by an agency which has accumulated substantial expertise, and to which the legislature has delegated the responsibility of implementing the legislative command." (Citations omitted.) State, ex rel. McLean v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 25 Ohio St.3d 90, 92, 495 N.E.2d 370, 372 (1986).
{¶ 13} On December 16, 2017, appellant suffered an injury while in the course of his employment with appellee resulting in near instantaneous death. Appellee did not file a report of the death with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.28. The parties do not dispute these facts, nor have they cited to any other material facts in dispute. The sole issue before this court is the trial court's interpretation of R.C. 4123.28 and its application to the undisputed facts.
{¶ 14} R.C. 4123.28 states the following in pertinent part:
{¶ 15} The first question we must resolve is whether such a report was required by the undisputed facts in this case. The second and ultimately controlling question is whether the failure to file a report of death implicates the extension of the statute of limitations set out in the final paragraph of R.C. 4123.28.
Requirement to file a report of the death
{¶ 16} In its decision mailed April 9, 2020, the district hearing officer denied the claim, finding the following:
The District Hearing Officer reads R.C. 4123.28 as requiring that an injury or occupational disease be contracted by an Employee in the course of their employment and resulting in seven days or more of total disability. Absence (sic) either one of those requirements, the District Hearing Officer finds that R.C. 4123.28 would not apply. Since there were no days of total disability resulting from the Decedent's death, the District Hearing Officer finds that the triggering provision set forth in R.C. 4123.28 for a report to be filed with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation never occurred in this case. Therefore, the District Hearing Officer denies the Claimant's C5 in its entirety, since that C5 was not filed within one year of the date of death.
{¶ 17} In a decision mailed June 6, 2020, the staff hearing officer also denied the claim, finding the following:
After considering the above, the Hearing Officer is persuaded the provisions of R.C. 4123.28 are not applicable in this situation and the time period to file this claim has not been extended. The first sentence of this statute plainly requires the keeping of a record of all injuries and occupational diseases received or contracted in the course of employment and resulting in seven days or more of total disability. This sentence clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial