Briefs and decisions in the Groch case

FEBRUARY 21, 2008 UPDATE. On February 21, 2008, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in the Groch case. The 6-1 decision:

• Upheld a 2003 workers’ compensation law that allows companies to recover costs of medical care and lost wages from injured workers who win damage awards from third parties;

• Upheld the constitutionality of a 10-year statute of repose for the accrual of a product liability claim against a product manufacturer;

• Found the retroactive application of the time limit to bar a claim against a manufacturer for injuries that a person sustained within two years before the law took effect to be unconstitutional; and

• Found that the statute in question did not violate the single subject rule.

Full text of the Ohio Supreme Court decision

Summary of the Ohio Supreme Court's Decision in Groch
February 22, 2008

On December 27, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to answer nine questions challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 80, the 2005 Ohio tort reform legislation. These questions were certified from the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division in Groch v. General Motors Corp. (Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2006-1914).

Eight of the questions relate to the workers' compensation subrogation statutes and the statute of repose for products. The ninth question certified relates to the entirety of S.B. 80: "Does Senate Bill 80 violate the one-subject rule, Art. II, Section 15, of the Ohio Constitution?" Thus, the Court's answers to the questions before it will have an impact far beyond the context of cases involving workers compensation subrogation or statute of repose issues.

In Groch, an employee of General Motors was injured while operating a trim press on the job. Plaintiff Doug Grouch sued GM alleging an employment intentional tort and also sued the manufacturers of the trim press (Kard Corporation and Racine Federated, Inc.) alleging a products liability claim. Plaintiff's wife filed a claim for loss of consortium. GM asserted a subrogation interest in Plaintiff's tort recovery for its payment to him of workers' compensation benefits. In response, Plaintiff asserted that the Ohio statutes granting GM's subrogation rights (R.C. 4123.93 and R.C. 4123.931) are unconstitutional. The defendants that manufactured the trim press asserted that they are immune from liability pursuant to the statute of repose for products liability claims (R.C. 2305.10). Plaintiff argues that the statute of repose for products liability claims is unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it violates the ban on retroactive laws.

The Ohio Attorney General intervened on behalf of the State to defend the constitutionality of the statutes. Oral argument was held on Wednesday September 19, 2007.

For more information regarding this case, contact Anne Marie Sferra chair of the Bricker & Eckler appellate group.