|
|
2007-0152. Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2013.
Cuyahoga App. No. 87567, 2006-Ohio-5921. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs separately.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-2013.pdf
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
(May 7, 2008) In a case alleging that the state systematically underpaid lump-sum settlements to permanently disabled workers, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that a claim against the state for money due under a contract is not a claim of “equitable restitution” that may be filed in a common pleas court, but is rather a claim for legal relief that may only be brought in the Ohio Court of Claims.
The Court’s 7-0 decision, authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, reversed a ruling of the 8th District Court of Appeals.
The case involves an attempt by Pietro Cristino and other disabled workers to pursue a class action lawsuit against the state in a court of common pleas. The plaintiffs – each of whom was qualified to receive lifetime benefits from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) based on an award of permanent total disability – each accepted a single lump-sum payment from the bureau in lieu of a lifetime stream of monthly disability benefits. Their complaint alleges that, after the BWC described the value of each lump-sum payment as the “present value” of each permanent disability claim, the BWC improperly calculated the present value of the claims. The complaint seeks to recover the alleged actual present value of the claims.
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas initially granted a motion by the state to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the recovery sought by the plaintiffs was an “award of money damages” from the state and therefore could only be brought in the Court of Claims. The 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Cristino and his fellow plaintiffs appealed the 8th District’s ruling to the Supreme Court. The Court issued a one-sentence decision in which it reversed the 8th District’s ruling and remanded the case to the common pleas court “on the basis of Santos v. BWC.” Santos was a 2004 case in which the Court held that a claimant’s attempt to recover workers compensation benefits that had been improperly subrogated (taken back) by the state wasa claim seeking “equitable relief” that could be heard in a common pleas court. On remand, the common pleas court accepted the plaintiffs’ complaint and certified the case as a class action. BWC appealed, and 8th District affirmed the action of the trial court. The state sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 8th District’s ruling.
In today’s unanimous decision, the Court held that, on review, the claim in Santosis factually distinguishable from Cristino’s claim.
Citing a 1991 Supreme Court decision, Ohio Hospital Association v. Ohio Department of Human Services, Chief Justice Moyer said the key distinction between Ohio Hospital Association and the current case is that the plaintiffs in Ohio Hospital Association were seeking recovery of funds to which they claimed a statutory entitlement, while Cristino and the other plaintiffs in this case are seeking to enforce a contractual agreement. “The rule applied in Ohio Hosp. Assn. is clear: A claim against the state for money due under a contract is a not a claim of equitable restitution and must be brought in the Ohio Court of Claims.”
“In the present case, Cristino’s own argument reveals that the basis for his action is his agreement with the bureau: ‘The crux of the instant Complaint is that the Bureau agreed to provide hundreds of recipients of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits with a lump sum payment of the “present value” of their claims.’ (Emphasis added),” the Chief Justice wrote. “Although the exact nature of the agreement is disputed, it is clear that Cristino seeks to enforce this agreement and provide class members with the ‘actual present value’ of their claims. His recovery depends upon the interpretation of the term ‘present value’ in his agreement with the bureau.”
“Our decision in Santosis inapplicable here,” he added. “In Santos, the class of plaintiffs at issue ‘sought return of funds already collected by the BWC under the subrogation statute.’ The plaintiffs thus sought the return of funds that had once been in their possession and so belonged to them ‘in good conscience.’ ... Although we remanded this matter to the trial court on the authority of Santos, upon further review it is clear that Santosis factually distinguishable from the present matter. ... (A) claim against the state for money due under a contract is a not a claim of equitable restitution and must be brought in the Ohio Court of Claims. Cristino claims entitlement to the ‘actual present value’ of his permanent total disability claim pursuant to his agreement with the Bureau. We hold that his claim for restitution is not an equitable claim of restitution and that the court of common pleas therefore lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.”
Chief Justice Moyer’s opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer concurred with the majority’s judgment, but entered a separate opinion to state his view that, “If the allegations against the bureau, that it used a 30 percent reduction and outdated mortality tables to calculate lump-sum payments for Cristino and other members of the class, are true, the bureau should stop contesting this case. It should properly calculate the lump-sum payments for the members of the class and make additional payments as required.”
Contacts
Stephen P. Carney, 614.466.8980, for
the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
Paul W. Flowers, 216.344.9393, for Pietro Cristino et al.