Pulaski v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 1344
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in granting employer's motion to dismiss due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in an appeal brought pursuant to R.C. 4123.512. Although the Commission determined that an intervening injury broke the causal connection between the original industrial injury and the new non-industrial injury, the decision of the Commission expressly stated that claimant was not forever barred from seeking future benefits under the original allowed claim. Therefore, the issue at hand related to the extent of claimant's disability, not his right to participate in the worker's compensation fund, and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \the term insured location is intended and appropriately understood to be limited to the residence and premises integral to its use as a residence\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
- individual seeking to recover under third-party’s insurance policy had the “burden of proving the applicability of the exception to the exclusion”
- “While reading and understanding an insurance policy’s provisions as to coverages, exclusions, and exceptions is often a formidable task, difficulty in comprehension does not equate with ambiguity.”
- burden of proving exception to an exclusion is on the insured
- \difficulty in comprehension does not equate with ambiguity\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lewis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.