Court Rulings

We granted this Rule 9 interlocutory appeal in this healthcare liabilty action to consider whether termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the statute of limitations in this healthcare liability action constitutes sufficient extraordinary cause to excuse (1) plaintiff's failure to wait at least sixty days to file the complaint after providing pre-suit notice as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and, (2) plaintiff's failure to file a Certificate of Good Faith with the complaint as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. We find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in finding and holding that termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations does constitute the type of extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse plaintiff's failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court's orders denying the motions to dismiss.

Disability discrimination perceived prima facie transitory and minor. A plaintiff claiming disability discrimination cannot make out a prima facie case of being perceived as disabled if the plaintiff's injuries are transitory and minor — defined under federal law as an impairment with an actual or expected duration of six months or less. Although plaintiff-employee had been placed on disability leave after breaking bones in both hands, her injuries healed and she returned to work in six weeks. The court did not err by directing a verdict in favor the defendant-employer because the plaintiff's injuries were thus transitory and minor, excluding her from a "perceived as" disabled discrimination claim.

Because R.C. 119.12(N) expressly limits an agency's right to appeal an adverse ruling of the common pleas court to questions of law relating to the constitutionality, construction, or interpretation of statutes and rules of the agency, the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction of an appeal by Ohio Veterans Home from a decision of the common pleas court affirming SPBR's determination that appellee's position with OVH placed him in the classified civil service. The question presented to the common pleas court was the correctness of the judgment in light of the facts and not a question of law relating to the constitutionality, construction, or interpretation of statutes and rules of the agency. Appeal dismissed.

CIVIL - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - PROVISION OF DEFENSE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE - R.C. 2744.07(A)(1) following amendment to this statute, in order for a political subdivision to be required to provide a defense for its employee, the trial court must determine that the employee's act occurred while he was acting both in good faith and not manifestly outside the scope of his employment the pleadings themselves no longer provide an alternative basis on which to require a subdivision to provide its employee with a defense appellate court held the trial court's finding that the girls basketball coach's sexual activity with two of his students could not reasonably be considered to be in the scope of his employment was supported by competent, credible evidence.

Appellants, a school district and its employee, appeal the court's decision denying the employee's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a personal injury action. The trial court properly denied the employee's motion where it could not be demonstrated, beyond doubt, that the plaintiff had no viable claim against the employee.

Summary judgment race discrimination promissory estoppel overtime hours discovery motions. Trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant-employer regarding employee's race discrimination claim, because there are genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment was properly granted to employer regarding employee's promissory estoppel and violation of Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act claims. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.

No error disposing case because no issue of material fact existed to challenge whether employment was governed by CBA no jurisdiction.

In these consolidated matters, the plaintiffs appeal a Superior Court justice's approval of a class action for settlement purposes only. The plaintiffs, all state and municipal employees, alleged that the settlement violated their constitutional rights in denying them their retirement benefits. They contended that the trial justice's certification of the class was improper and that the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Supreme Court first held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in certifying the class in accordance with Rule 23(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, because the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were all met. Next, the Court determined that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in certifying the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), because the plaintiffs sought mainly equitable relief, and any money damages would be merely incidental. The Court also held that the trial justice's division of the class into subclasses was not improper. Finally, the Court concluded that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in finding that the settlement was procedurally fair. In addition, the Court affirmed the trial justice's determination that the settlement was substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate, acknowledging that the trial justice conducted an exhaustive review of the factors necessary to ascertain the fairness of the settlement and did not overlook any of the objectors' concerns. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Relator's objections sustained and limited writ of mandamus granted in voluntary abandonment case for partial total disability workers compensation. Social Security Administration administrative law judge previously found Relator disabled as result of industrial injury and unfit for vocational rehabilitation. Magistrate's findings of fact adopted with additional findings of fact made by appeals court. Magistrate's findings of law not adopted, and Industrial Commission's decision vacated and matter remanded for new hearing consistent with the law as stated in appeals court's decision.

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. Under Ohio's borrowing statute, R.C. 2305.03, and controlling choice of law principles, Tennessee law applied to appellant's wrongful termination claims. Consequently, appellant's claims were time-barred under that state's statute of limitations.

Workers' compensation-Claimant's average weekly wage incorrectly calculated, resulting in overpayment of claim-Upon discovery of error, Bureau of Workers' Compensation adjusted claimant's average weekly wage-Industrial Commission affirmed adjustment and directed bureau to recoup overpayment from claimant's future benefits-R.C. 4123.52 grants the bureau and the commission authority to exercise continuing jurisdiction-Commission may modify former findings or orders if modification is justified-Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus to compel commission to vacate its order affirmed.

Last injurious exposure Average weekly wage calculation North Carolina Full Industrial Commission authority to amend an award

CONTRACTS - DAMAGES: Where the parties' elevator-maintenance contract clearly and unambiguously provided that defendant would be responsible for paying the difference between plaintiff's regular and overtime billing rates if it requested that plaintiff perform services outside of the contractually specified dates and times, the trial court did not err in accepting testimony from plaintiff as to the amount plaintiff charged for regular and overtime services in a given year, or in awarding damages accordingly. Where the contract did not specify the hourly rate that defendant would be required to pay plaintiff for performing requested services that were not covered under the contract, the trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff damages for the services in the amount of plaintiff's standard rates. The trial court erred in awarding plaintiff the gross revenue that it would have received under the second year of the parties' contract where plaintiff stopped performing contractual services due to defendant's nonpayment the court should have awarded plaintiff its lost profits.

discipline of state employee unacceptable personal conduct tardiness and absences ALJ review of agency decision just cause for discipline.

Unemployment compensation just cause to quit failure to pay as promised. UCRC's decision finding no just cause to quit and disallowing employee's unemployment compensation benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Hearing officer's decision improperly found that employee's failure to quit "immediately" and failure to notify anyone other than his immediate supervisor of workplace issues did not amount to just cause to quit. Furthermore, hearing officer improperly concluded that the employer's failure to address the employee's concerns was reasonable just cause to quit, under unemployment compensation law, focuses on the conduct of the employee, not the employer.

disability discrimination claim Ohio's Civil Rights Act trial court affirmed decision of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission finding discrimination Ohio Adm.Code 4112-5-08(E)(1) employee was otherwise qualified person capable of safely and substantially performing the essential functions employer failed to grant employee a reasonable accommodation employee adequately mitigated his damages

Environmental Review Appeals Commission did not err by granting motion to dismiss appeal for lack of standing where appellant failed to establish that it would suffer injury in fact from issuance of permit-to-install on-site sewage treatment system.

employment at will doctrine - public policy exception - tort

Civ.R. 9(A) requires parties to claim lack of capacity by "specific negative averment," or else the matter is waived immunity R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) police pursuit determination of whether an officer's actions amount to willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct depends on the totality of the circumstances.

The trial court did not err in concluding that Appellant, a traveling employee, was on a personal errand at the time of her injury and was not entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits. Affirmed.

The question whether the trial court erred by overruling Appellant's motion to stay the writ of restitution pending objections is moot because the court later did grant a stay. Even if the trial court's reasons for overruling Appellant's objections to the magistrate's decision are erroneous, the errors are harmless. The overruling of the objections was correct for other reasons. The notice of termination of Appellant's lease was not defective. Appellee did not waive Appellant's lease breach, because Appellee did not accept payments from Appellant after it served the notice of termination. Appellee effectively granted Appellant the reasonable accommodation that she requested. Judgments affirmed.