ROMINGER LEGAL
Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH
This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

[Cite as State ex rel. Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp, 91
Ohio St.3d 249, 2001-Ohio-29.]


THE STATE EX REL. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v.
BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 249.]
Workers' compensation -- Employer's switch from self-insured status to state
insurance fund status -- Employer's insured status at time of employee's
injury or injurious exposure controls which fund is responsible for the
claim.
(No. 99-686 -- Submitted January 9, 2001 -- Decided April 11, 2001.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-505.
__________________

Per Curiam. Diamond Shamrock Corporation ("Diamond") went through
significant corporate changes in the 1980s. Two are relevant here: (1) the
convoluted merger of Diamond's chemical division into Occidental Chemical
Corporation ("Occidental") and (2) a change in workers' compensation insurance
status.

In 1983, Diamond changed its corporate structure. A holding company of
the same name was formed. Nonchemical operations were transferred to newly
created subsidiaries of the new Diamond. The chemical component of old
Diamond became a subsidiary of the new Diamond and changed its name to
Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company ("Shamrock Chemicals").

This corporate reorganization presumably prompted a change in the
workers' compensation insurance status of the former chemical division. Old
Diamond had been self-insured. On July 1, 1984, it canceled its self-insured
status, and Shamrock Chemicals, as a result, became a state insurance fund
employer. This is significant because in 1986, new Diamond sold Shamrock


SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Chemicals' outstanding stock to a company owned by Occidental Petroleum
Corporation. Shamrock Chemicals was again renamed, and on November 30,
1987, was merged into Occidental Chemical Corporation, appellant herein. As
part of the merger, Shamrock Chemicals dropped its separate state fund risk
number and moved under Occidental's state fund risk.

In 1992, Lewis Tobul, who worked for Diamond from 1941 through 1976,
died. His widow alleged that his death was due to chemical exposure at a
Diamond plant in Painesville. The Industrial Commission of Ohio awarded death
benefits against "Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company C/O Occidental
Chemical Corporation." No payments, however, were forthcoming.

While the widow waited, both Occidental and a corporate successor of
Diamond, Maxus Energy Corporation, clashed with appellee Bureau of Workers'
Compensation--and each other--over responsibility for claims arising while
Diamond was self-insured, including Tobul's claim. Occidental argued that
because Shamrock Chemicals was insured by the state fund when Occidental
bought it, the state fund was the responsible payor. The bureau, however, ruled
that companies that changed from self-insured to state fund status retained direct
financial responsibility for all claims arising while the company was self-
insured--responsibility did not pass to the state fund. Therefore, because (1) the
chemical manufacturing portion of Diamond was self-insured during Tobul's
injurious chemical exposure, and (2) Occidental was the successor-by-merger of
that operation, Occidental, not the state fund, was liable for payment.

The Self-Insured Review Panel of the bureau stressed:

"Both parties [Occidental and Maxus] have expressed their concerns of
potentially being assessed self-insured liabilities when they are not self-insured
employers. This Panel is in no way attempting to transfer the self-insured status
of Diamond Shamrock Corporation to either of these employers. Instead, this
panel is attempting to ascertain which party is responsible for the self-insured
2

January Term, 2001
liabilities. Self-insured liabilities, like other corporate liabilities, pass to the
successor corporations along with the assets.

"After a review of the statement of facts and testimony elicited at the
conference, the Panel finds that Occidental Chemical Co. is the employer
responsible for those claims attributable to Diamond Shamrock Chemicals
Company. Stated simply: the Panel finds that Occidental Chemical Co. is a
successor employer to Diamond Shamrock and is therefore responsible for its
self-insuring workers' compensation obligations." (Emphasis sic.)

Occidental filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County, alleging that the bureau had abused its discretion in determining
that Occidental was responsible for Lewis Tobul's claim. The court of appeals
disagreed and denied the writ. This cause is now before this court upon an appeal
as of right.

Occidental does not dispute the principle that the responsibilities of the
merged corporation are assumed by the surviving entity. See R.C. 1701.82(A)(4);
ASA Architects, Inc. v. Schlegel (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 666, 665 N.E.2d 1083. It
instead disputes the determination that liability for decedent's claim ever fell
within Shamrock Chemicals' self-insured risk.

Occidental argues that because decedent died after Shamrock Chemicals
had converted to state fund insurance, expenses related to his death were not
Shamrock Chemicals' and, hence, not Occidental's after merger. Occidental
claims that any statutory or regulatory authority for a contrary finding was not
enacted or adopted until after the two companies merged.

While Occidental's statutory argument is true, State ex rel. Marion Power
Shovel Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1950), 153 Ohio St. 451, 41 O.O. 438, 92 N.E.2d 14,
substantially preceded the merger and supports the bureau's assessment of
liability. That case was precipitated by a situation that is not uncommon to
workers' compensation administration--an employer's switch from state fund to
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
self-insured status or vice versa. Marion Power Shovel entailed the latter and
touched upon a question obvious to the situation--when an employer changes
insured status, from what fund do claims that arose before the change continue to
be paid? Marion Power Shovel ruled that the employer's insured status at the
time of injury or injurious exposure controlled. Thus, because the claimant in that
case was exposed while the employer was self-insured, the company retained
direct responsibility for that claim and could not pass it off to the state insurance
fund.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., CONCUR.
__________________

Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, L.P.A., William J. Barath and Robert D.
Weisman, for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
__________________
4

 

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.