No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court of Appeals judgment reversed on authority of Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc.; case remanded to trial court for further proceedings regarding proof required to establish intentional tort by employer against employee in workers' compensation context.
Workers' compensation—Proof required to establish that an employer has committed an intentional tort against an employee—Court of appeals' judgment reversed on authority of Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. and cause remanded to trial court for further proceedings.
Miller v. Ruhlin Construction: Court Clarifies Rules for Suing Employers Beyond Workers' Comp
This case involved a worker named Miller who sued his employer, Ruhlin Construction, claiming the company intentionally harmed him. Miller wanted to sue for damages beyond what workers' compensation typically covers. Under Ohio law, employees usually can't sue their employers directly because workers' compensation is meant to be the only remedy for workplace injuries. However, there's an exception when an employer intentionally hurts a worker.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration. The high court said the lower court needed to follow stricter rules established in an earlier case (Fyffe v. Jeno's) about what evidence workers must provide to prove their employer intentionally caused harm.
This ruling matters for workers because it clarifies that while you can potentially sue your employer for intentional wrongdoing beyond workers' compensation, you'll need very strong evidence to prove your case. The court made it clear that these lawsuits require meeting a high legal standard, making it more challenging for workers to pursue such claims against their employers.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under…
Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.