Smith v. Jones
| Citation | 2007 Ohio 6708,889 N.E.2d 141,175 Ohio App.3d 705 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-06-47.,5-06-47. |
| Parties | SMITH, Appellant, et al. v. JONES et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Ronald J. Mauer, for appellant.
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Benjamin W. Crider, and Lee M. Smith, for appellee, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, April J. Smith, appeals the judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, denying her motion for partial summary judgment and finding that R.C. 4123.931 is constitutional. On appeal, Smith asserts that the trial court erred by finding that R.C. 4123.931 does not violate Sections 2, 5, 16, and 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Based on the following, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} In April 2003, Smith was injured in an automobile accident when the vehicle she was driving collided with a vehicle driven by defendant, Carolyn S. Jones, during the course and scope of her employment with Hancock County.
{¶ 3} In May 2003, Smith filed a claim for benefits with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("the BWC"), which the BWC allowed.1
{¶ 4} In March 2005, Smith filed a negligence claim against Jones. Additionally, Smith alleged that the workers' compensation subrogation statutes, R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931, were unconstitutional on their face and as applied to her, and she requested a declaratory judgment.
{¶ 5} In October 2005, the BWC filed a cross-claim against Smith, seeking subrogation for past medical benefits and compensation paid to her, as well as for future estimated payments.
{¶ 6} In December 2005, Smith moved for partial summary judgment for a declaration that R.C. 4123.931 was unconstitutional.
{¶ 7} In April 2006, Jones was dismissed from the action after settling with Smith.
{¶ 8} In August 2006, the trial court denied Smith's December 2005 motion for partial summary judgment, finding:
R.C. 4123.931 * * * does not violate Sections 2, 5, 16, and 19 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated as between Smith and the BWC. Construing the evidence most strongly in the BWC's favor, reasonable minds can only reach a conclusion that is adverse to [Smith]. Thus, Smith is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her claim that [R.C.] 4123.931 is unconstitutional. * * * As a result of the Court's determination that the statute is constitutional, both facially and as applied to this case, the Court dismisses with prejudice [Smith's request for] declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional. Given that the pending claims against Defendant Jones have been settled by the parties, the only matter pending before the Court is the amount, if any, of the subrogation lien applied to the settlement. Given that [R.C.] 4123.931 specifically provides methods for the allocation of this amount, the Court dismisses the remainder of the cause of action in this case.
{¶ 9} It is from this judgment that Smith appeals, presenting the following assignments of error for our review.2
The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that R.C. 4123.931 does not violate the right of due course of law and right to a remedy under Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the protections of the Private Property and the Takings clause in Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
The trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to find that R.C. 4123.931 violates the Equal Protection clause contained in Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
The trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to find that R.C. 4123.931 violates the right to trial by jury guaranteed by Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
{¶ 10} We apply the following standards of review throughout. Additionally, before we discuss Smith's assignments of error, we provide an overview of R.C. 4123.931.
{¶ 11} An appellate court reviews a summary judgment order de novo. Hillyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 172, 175, 722 N.E.2d 108. Accordingly, a reviewing court will not reverse an otherwise correct judgment merely because the lower court utilized different or erroneous reasons as the basis for its determination. Diamond Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Dayton Heidelberg Distrib. Co., 148 Ohio App.3d 596, 2002-Ohio-3932, 774 N.E.2d 775, ¶ 25, citing State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631 N.E.2d 150. Summary judgment is appropriate when, looking at the evidence as a whole, (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) 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; and, therefore, (3) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C); Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 686-687, 653 N.E.2d 1196. If any doubts exist, the issue must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 604 N.E.2d 138.
{¶ 12} The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of producing some evidence that affirmatively demonstrates the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens Cty. Clerk of Courts (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 523, 524, 700 N.E.2d 1260; see also Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. The nonmoving party must then rebut with specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue and may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of their pleadings. Id.
{¶ 13} All legislative enactments are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging such an enactment bears the burden of proving otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 17, citing Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003-Ohio-4779, 795 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 4. A party may challenge the constitutionality of a statute either on its face or as applied to a particular set of facts. Harold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 37, citing Belden v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 329, 28 O.O. 295, 55 N.E.2d 629, paragraph four of the syllabus.
{¶ 14} A facial challenge is the most difficult to bring successfully because the challenger must demonstrate that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid. Harold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, at ¶ 37, citing United States v. Salerno (1987), 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697. The fact that a statute might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid. Id. Conversely, when a statute is challenged as applied, the challenger must establish by clear and convincing evidence an existing set of facts that renders the statute invalid when applied to those facts. Harold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, at ¶ 38, citing Belden, 143 Ohio St. 329, 28 O.O. 295, 55 N.E.2d 629, at paragraph six of the syllabus.
{¶ 15} Under the current version of R.C. 4123.931, the payment of workers' compensation or benefits "creates a right of recovery in favor of a statutory subrogee against a third party, and the statutory subrogee is subrogated to the rights of a claimant against that third party."3 R.C. 4123.931(A). The legislature first established a statutory right of subrogation for workers' compensation benefits in 1993 under former R.C. 4123.93, but later amended it in 1995, separating it into two divisions: R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931.
{¶ 16} Subsequently, in Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co., the Ohio Supreme Court held that the 1995 amended version violated the Due Process, Takings, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio Constitution for two reasons: (1) it effectuated a potential windfall for the statutory subrogee by giving it a current collectible interest in estimated future benefits that the claimant might never receive and (2) it subjected the entire amount of any settlement to the statutory subrogee's reimbursement right without allowing the claimant to demonstrate that portions of the settlement did not duplicate the workers' compensation benefits received. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 115, 123-128, 748 N.E.2d 1111.4
{¶ 17} In response to Holeton, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 227, effective April 9, 2003, establishing the current version of R.C. 4123.931.5 R.C. 4123.931 now provides a pro rata formula to determine the amount allocated to each party and applies to both settled claims and judgment awards of damages. See R.C. 4123.931(B) and (D)(1). Under the formula, the claimant's amount is equal to the amount of uncompensated damages divided by the sum of the statutory subrogee's subrogation interest and the uncompensated damages, multiplied by the net amount recovered. The statutory subrogee's amount is equal to the subrogation interest divided by the sum of the subrogation interest and the uncompensated damages, multiplied by the net amount recovered. R.C. 4123.931(B) and (D)(1). Uncompensated damages are "the claimant's demonstrated or proven damages minus the statutory subrogee's subrogation interest." R.C. 4123.93(F). The subrogation interest is the "past, present, and estimated future payments" made to the claimant by the statutory subrogee. R.C. 4123.93(D). The net amount recovered refers to the "amount of any award, settlement, compromise, or recovery by a claimant against a third party, minus the attorney's fees, costs, or other expenses incurred by the claimant in securing the award, settlement, compromise, or recovery," but does not include...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spano
...by clear and convincing evidence an existing set of facts that renders the statute invalid when applied to those facts." Smith v. Jones, 175 Ohio App.3d 705, 2007-Ohio-6708, 889 N.E.2d 141, ¶ 14, citing Harold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, at ¶ 38. {¶ 11} Appellant's ......
-
State ex rel. Fair v. City of Canton, Case No. 2011 CA 00132
... ... must establish by clear and convincing evidence an existing set of facts that renders thePage 7statute invalid when applied to those facts." Smith v. Jones, 175 Ohio App.3d 705, 2007-Ohio-6708, 889 N.E.2d 141, 14, citing Harold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, at 38.{ 27} ... ...
-
CITY of CLEVELAND v. POSNER
...by clear and convincing evidence an existing set of facts that renders the statute invalid when applied to those facts.” Smith v. Jones, 175 Ohio App.3d 705, 2007-Ohio-6708, 889 N.E.2d 141, ¶ 14, citing Harold, 107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165, at ¶ 38. [11] {¶ 17} This co......
-
State ex rel. Caszatt v. Gibson, CASE NO. 2012-L-107
... ... State ex Page 8 rel. Feathers v. Hayes, 11th Dist. No. 2006-P-0092, 2007-Ohio-3852, 9; State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998). The writ is an extraordinary remedy which should not be issued in a routine manner. State ex rel. The ... In Smith v. Jones, 175 Ohio App.3d 705, 707, 2007-Ohio-6708 (3rd Dist.), plaintiff Smith was insured by Jones during the course of her employment. Smith ... ...