Court Rulings

WORKERS' COMPENSATION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the appellant employer's motion to dismiss the employee claimant's workers' compensation claim where the properly-served claimant failed to appear, failed to file his R.C. 4123.512(D) petition, failed to oppose the employer's motion to dismiss, and failed to attend any motion hearing or case-management conference.

CIVIL - summary judgment Civ.R. 56 failure to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact existed for trial tortious interference with an employment relationship malicious conduct proximate cause.

REPORTED OPINION granting in part, as to former PCC employees who separated from employment prior to September 23, 1996 and denying in part, as to former PCC employees who separated from employment on or after September 23, 1996, Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The parties are directed to file a joint status report, on or before 8/31/2017, proposing a schedule to govern this case going forward as to the claims of former employees who separated from PCC employment on or after September 23, 1996.. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith.

Employer appeals jury verdict entitling worker to participate in workers' compensation fund. Trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in instructing jurors that they need not be certain of the date of the worker's injury, only that the worker proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was injured in the course of his employment.

Breach of contract declaratory judgment motion to dismiss summary judgment motion to strike- The court found exhibits were not "mediation communications" under R.C. 2710.01 and denied defendant's motion to strike. Plaintiff sought unpaid balance of construction contract and declaration that its work conformed to the contract and/or that it was not responsible for any additional work. The Court initially determined that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court determined that an issue of fact existed regarding the accrual of plaintiff's claims and, therefore, when the statute of limitations began to run. The Court further determined that plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in bringing its claims and that the doctrine of laches did not bar plaintiff's claims. The Court also held that plaintiff's claim seeking a declaration of the parties' rights under the contract asserted a proper declaratory judgment claim while any claim seeking a determination of proximate cause did not. Finally, the Court found that plaintiff did not fail to join necessary parties and ultimately denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

An offense may be a "specified offense against a minor" within the meaning of section 111(7) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 592, even if it involved an undercover police officer posing as a minor, rather than an actual minor.

Dismisal of order and notice of garnishment and termination of wage garnishment

Trial court erred by granting summary judgment where there were disputed issues of fact as to whether a company negligently entrusted its vehicle to an unlicensed individual and whether the individual was an independent contractor or an employee.

Civil Rule 60(B)(5), Civil Rule 58(B), relief from judgment, credibility determination

EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS - breach of contract R.C. 3319.17 age discrimination R.C. 4112.14 in an indirect evidence case courts employ a four-part test to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination constructive discharge.

For purposes of determining governmental immunity, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the government employee negligently punctured a gas line where there is conflicting evidence regarding the location of the damage, and whether a utilities protection service request was made for the correct location.

Workers' Compensation—Occupational Disease—Apportionment—Previous Injury. Claimant Hutchison has worked as a trailer mechanic for Pine Country, Inc. (employer) since 1990. Claimant began experiencing knee pain in 2012. In October 2014, when his symptoms worsened, claimant reported his knee pain to his employer as a work-related occupational disease. The employer contested the claim on relatedness grounds, and supported its position with an independent medical examination, which concluded that claimant had osteoarthritis and was overweight and suggested that claimant's employment was not the cause of the arthritis. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that one-third of claimant's injury was work-related. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) affirmed the ALJ's decision.On appeal, claimant challenged the apportionment of his benefits award. Claimant contended that his knee condition arose from repetitive kneeling and crawling necessitated by his work as a trailer mechanic, rather than from a specific incident, and therefore, it should be covered as an occupational disease. Here, because claimant's knee condition was one ongoing disease with both work- and non-work- related causes, there was no separate "previous injury" as anticipated by CRS § 8-42-104(3) it was instead one injury with multiple causes. The Panel therefore properly concluded that the CRS § 8-42-104(3) prohibition against apportionment for a previous injury did not apply. Further, the order is consistent with case law. Claimant also contended that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's apportionment. The Court of Appeals concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's apportionment findings and held that the Panel did not err when it declined to set aside the ALJ's order on that basis. The order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation—Mutual Mistake of Material Fact—Colorado Workers' Compensation Act. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a provision of the mandatory form settlement document promulgated by the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation waives an injured employee's statutory right under CRS § 8-43-204(1) to reopen a settlement based on a mutual mistake of material fact. The Court concluded that it does not because provisions of the form document must yield to statutory rights. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Common pleas court decision affirming resolution that terminated public school teacher's employment contract affirmed trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that teacher improperly asserted herself into a situation that was being handled by two others or by refusing to apply R.C. 3319.41(C) because there was no threat to others for the teacher to quell.

SERB did not abuse its discretion in dismissing relator's ULP complaint for lack of probable cause where the plain language of the expiring CBA permitted either party to declare an impasse in negotiations and proceed to mediation when, after 45 days from the expiration of the CBA, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Objections overruled writ of mandamus denied.