Parma v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Parma v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2006-Ohio-7136.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO THE CITY OF PARMA : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-06341-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} On May 3, 2005, plaintiff, the City of Parma, filed a complaint against defendant, Bureau of Workers Compensation. Plaintiff asserts an agent of defendant, while in the course and scope of their employment with defendant, negligently struck a fire hydrant damaging it. Plaintiff submitted the filing fee with the complaint. {¶ 2} On May 6, 2005, defendant was served with a copy of the form complaint and required to file an investigation report in accordance with R.C. 2743.10(B). this court issued investigation report. not comply. issued an entries On August 2, and August 25, 2005, ordering defendant to file the A check of the docket revealed defendant did On October 11, 2005, a judge of the Court of Claims entry authorizing the deputy clerk to Aorder the appropriate sanctions against defendant including default judgment in favor of plaintiff.@ {¶ 3} On October 28, 2005, defendant filed an investigation report admitting liability for the damage caused to plaintiff=s fire hydrant. However, defendant contends plaintiff=s damage amount is excessive and plaintiff failed to attempt to negotiate an amount of damages with the Ohio Department of Administrative Case No. 2005-06341-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION Services Offices of Risk Management. {¶ 4} On November the defendant=s 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a response to investigation report. Plaintiff attached correspondence to its response evidencing that, in fact, it had contacted the Office of Risk Management prior to filing suit in the Court of Claims. Furthermore, plaintiff asserts the amount of damages was based on a bill it had to pay the Cleveland Division of Water, the only entity that could make such repairs. Included with the plaintiff=s original filing was a bill from the City of Cleveland Division of Water in the amount of $1,071.62. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} In regards to the facts of this claim, negligence on the part of defendant has been shown. Baisden v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1977), 76-0617-AD; Stewart v. Ohio National Guard (1979), 78-0342-AD. {¶ 6} Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $1,071.62, plus the $25.00 filing fee, which may be reimbursed as compensable damages pursuant to the holding in Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19. [Cite as Parma v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2006-Ohio-7136.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO THE CITY OF PARMA : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-06341-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1096.62, which includes the filing fee. assessed against defendant. Court costs are The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Richard D. Summers Assistant Law Director City of Parma Law Department 6611 Ridge Road Parma, Ohio 44129 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Travis Litigation Manager Ohio Bureau of Workers= Compensation 30 West Spring Street, L-26 Columbus, Ohio 43215 For Defendant DRB/laa 1/25 Filed 2/28/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/24/06
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
