On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s new intentional tort statute which requires employees to demonstrate and prove “. . . the employer acted with deliberate intent to injure” them in order to file a civil suit outside of the workers’ compensation system (Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products, Co.). The Court’s decision should substantially reduce the number of “intentional tort” civil action filings that are pursued by employees whenever they receive a work-related injury.
Tracing the judicial and legislative history of how Ohio’s “intentional tort” exception to workers' compensation exclusivity came about, the Kaminski Court ruled quite simply that Ohio’s Constitution says what it means, and means what it says: “Reduced to its most basic level, our decision today is grounded in the recognition that Sections 34 and 35 actually mean what they say.” Ruling that the Ohio General Assembly has the power to alter, revise, modify or abolish the common law, and that it is not a court’s function to second-guess the public policy as set forth by the General Assembly, a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court held that requiring employees to prove a “deliberate intent to harm” them in order to avoid the statutory and constitutional immunity provided to employers in the State of Ohio for workplace injuries is perfectly lawful. Without a demonstration of “deliberate intent” to harm them, injured workers in the State of Ohio no longer have a right to pursue civil litigation outside of the remedies afforded under the workers’ compensation system. As is typical in employment-related cases, liberal Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented from the majority’s holding, and would have ruled that the Ohio General Assembly has no power whatsoever to make laws in the employment arena unless those laws benefit employees.