Cleveland office adds Workers' Compensation services and team
June 9, 2022

Cleveland office adds Workers’ Compensation services and team

Cleveland office adds Workers' Compensation services and team

Perez Morris announced today the launch of workers’ compensation services in the law firm’s Cleveland, Ohio office. This addition to the firm’s current offerings includes two specialized workers’ compensation attorneys in Cleveland to help Ohio businesses navigate an influx of claims across the state. This is an important expansion of Perez Morris’ already strong workers’ compensation team, historically based in Columbus.

“The Ohio worker’s compensation system is complex, and the Perez Morris Cleveland office now has the resources to meet all workers’ compensation needs,” says Sarah Perez, firm managing partner. “Our lawyers represent state fund and self-insured employers in administrative hearings before the Industrial Commission of Ohio, in writ of mandamus matters before the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals, and in appeals before Ohio Courts of Common Pleas. We also handle workplace intentional tort actions.”

The Cleveland workers’ compensation group will counsel the largest healthcare organization in Ohio as well as construction, skilled nursing facilities, staffing agencies, and a variety of small businesses on their immediate and future workers’ compensation matters. The team brings more than three decades of experience to the firm and believes that now more than ever no business is immune to claims.

According to Workers’ Compensation Attorney Mark Gottfried, “given the direct impact that efficient and effective handling of these claims has on the workforce, the better businesses handle and manage these claims, the more productive they will be.

Workers’ compensation claims have evolved during the pandemic. With the great resignation and labor shortages, claims are becoming more lengthy, resulting in delays in employees returning to work. In addition, Gottfried expects that businesses will start to see an increase in remote claims in the coming year. Legislation in the pipeline will likely provide ground rules for such claims.

Gottfried suggests that claims create a moment for leaders to consider better ways to support employees and a checkpoint to make sure employees are in the right roles, accomplishing the right tasks to support company and personal growth. Perez Morris encourages businesses to proactively address workplace risks, incident protocols, and ways to collaborate and engage with employees from day one.

Construction worker on the job who had an accident
May 21, 2019

Intoxication defense to Ohio workers’ compensation claims

Nothing can be more frustrating to Ohio employers than an employee filing a workers’ compensation claim for an accident that was clearly caused by his own intoxication. In Ohio, the intoxication of an injured worker can typically be asserted as a workers’ compensation defense in two ways.

Ohio R.C. 4123.54(A)(2) provides that workers’ compensation injuries are not compensable when, “Caused by the employee being intoxicated, under the influence of a controlled substance not prescribed by a physician, or under the influence of marihuana if being intoxicated, under the influence of a controlled substance not prescribed by a physician, or under the influence of marihuana was the proximate cause of the injury”.

Additionally, R.C. 4123.54(B) provides where, an employer has posted written notice to employees that the results of, or the employee’s refusal to submit to, any chemical test described under this division may affect the employee’s eligibility for compensation and benefits pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code, there is a rebuttable presumption that an employee is intoxicated, under the influence of a controlled substance not prescribed by the employee’s physician, or under the influence of marihuana and that being intoxicated, under the influence of a controlled substance not prescribed by employee’s physician, or under the influence of marihuana is the proximate cause of the injury where a qualifying drug test is administered within a requisite number of hours subsequent to the injury.

Recently, we defended a claim in which the claimant argued that his submission of a non-conforming urine specimen (incapable of being tested as the temperature of the specimen was not within the required range for a liquid coming from a human body) constituted compliance with R.C. 4123.54(B). Amazingly, the district and staff hearing officers agreed with this argument, holding that the claimant did provide a urine sample and the statute does not specifically state it must be a compliant sample!

In this case it was necessary to file a motion for reconsideration and point out that it the policy of the Industrial Commission cannot be that a claimant can thwart the legislative intent regarding drug and alcohol in a work place by submitting an altered or non-complying urine specimen incapable of being tested. At the hearing we argued that the policy of the Industrial Commission should be consistent with the policies of the American Association of Medical Review Officers and the Medical Review Officer’s Certification Counsel, both of which deal which with drug and alcohol testing. Ultimately the Industrial Commission agreed with our position and held that the claimant must provide a compliant specimen that is capable of being tested.

Recently there has been a great deal of concern regarding Ohio’s legalization of medical marijuana. R.C. 3796.02. Fortunately, nothing in Ohio’s medical marijuana statute interferes with an employer’s right to discharge or take other employment actions based on an employee’s use of medical marijuana. Additionally, nothing in the statutes authorizes legal action against an employer for taking employment actions based on an employee’s use of medical marijuana. In summary, marijuana still remains illegal under Federal statutes, and nothing in Ohio’s legislative scheme should interfere with an employer’s right to set its own drug-free workplace policies. However, because this issue has come to the forefront, we do suggest that our clients review their current workplace policies and manuals to specifically address their positions concerning medicinal marijuana.

 

 

Prior to entering private practice, Dennis served in the Ohio Attorney General’s Office’s Workers’ Compensation Section for 10 years. Dennis’ practice since then has included all areas of workers’ compensation defense and employment litigation and counseling. Read more