Workers’ Compensation: Employers Win Big as The Supreme Court of Ohio Upholds the Constitutionality of the Employer Intentional Tort Statute
By Scott W Gedeon The Supreme Court of Ohio, in a pair of recent cases, upheld the constitutionality of the employer intentional tort statute. The statute applies to all workplace injuries sustained on or after April 7, 2005 and is the sole exception to the rule that workplace injuries are compensated through the workers’ compensation system rather than through private court action. Many legal commentators expected the Supreme Court to strike down this statute as the Supreme Court had found a prior version of the statute to be unconstitutional.
The employer intentional tort statute was passed with the intention of making an employer intentional tort more difficult to establish than under the prior common law standard.
Under the statute, an employer could only be liable for an intentional act committed by the employer, if the employer committed the act with “the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.” Furthermore, the statute defined “substantially certain” as when “an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.” This was a departure from the prior common law standard, set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio, which did not require the employer to act with “deliberate intent.”
The statute also provides that the deliberate removal by an employer of an “equipment safety guard” or the deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance results in a “rebuttable presumption” that the removal or misrepresentation was committed with intent to injure. Most likely, the plaintiff’s bar will seek to utilize the benefit of this rebuttable presumption in order to advance cases beyond summary judgment and to attempt to gain leverage for settlement.
In the coming months and years, employers may benefit from seeing fewer intentional tort filings and fewer cases moving beyond summary judgment. What remains unseen, however, is whether insurance carriers will provide indemnification for claims brought under the employer intentional tort statute, now that its constitutionality has been upheld.
If your company has questions concerning the employer intentional tort statute or workers’ compensation litigation, please do not hesitate to contact Scott Gedeon.
|
