Case Title: Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc.

Citation: 2016-Ohio-1567

Docket Number: 2015-0628

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Stolz 
v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1567.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-1567 
STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-1567.] 
Workers’ compensation—Immunity from tort claims—Self-insured construction 
projects—R.C. 4123.35(O)—Subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured-
construction-project plan are immune from tort claims made by other 
enrolled subcontractors’ employees who are injured or killed while working 
on the self-insured construction project and whose injury, illness, or death 
is compensable under Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. 
(No. 2015-0628—Submitted December 2, 2015—Decided April 19, 2016.) 
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 
Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. 1:14-cv-44. 
_____________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} This case is before us on the certification of a state-law question by 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.  
The federal court asks that we determine whether Ohio’s workers’ compensation 
laws, specifically R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74, provide immunity to a subcontractor 
enrolled in a self-insured construction-project plan from a tort claim for workplace 
injury by an employee of another enrolled subcontractor on the same project. 
{¶ 2} The unambiguous language of R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 compels our 
conclusion that subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured-construction-project plan 
are immune from tort claims made by the employees of other enrolled 
subcontractors who are injured or killed while working on the self-insured 
construction project and whose injury, illness, or death is compensable under 
Ohio’s workers’ compensation law.  We therefore answer the certified state-law 
question in the affirmative. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} The federal court provided the following facts and allegations from 
which the question of law arises. 
{¶ 4} The plaintiff in the underlying action, Daniel Stolz, worked as a 
concrete finisher for Jostin Construction, Inc. (“Jostin”) at the Horseshoe Casino 
construction project in Cincinnati (“Casino Project”).  Messer Construction 
Company (“Messer”) was the general contractor for the Casino Project, and Jostin 
was a subcontractor. 
{¶ 5} An accident on the job site injured Stolz, who brought negligence 
claims against Messer and against subcontractors J & B Steel Erectors (“J & B 
Steel”), Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”), Pendleton Construction Group, 
L.L.C. (“Pendleton”), D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc. (“D.A.G.”), and TriVersity 
Construction Co., L.L.C. (“TriVersity”).  Stolz claims each of the defendants had 
responsibilities related to the construction project. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 6} Prior to the accident, Messer had applied for and obtained authority 
from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) to act as the self-
insuring employer on the project under R.C. 4123.35(O).  In that role, Messer was 
responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees 
as well as the employees of enrolled subcontractors working on the Casino Project, 
including Jostin, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity. 
{¶ 7} Messer, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity1 moved for summary 
judgment on the basis that they were immune from Stolz’s negligence claims under 
Ohio’s workers’ compensation laws, specifically R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74.  The 
district court granted summary judgment to the general contractor, Messer, as the 
self-insuring employer on the Casino Project.  But the court denied summary 
judgment to subcontractors J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity, finding that an 
enrolled subcontractor on a self-insured construction project is immune only from 
claims made by its own employees and not from those made by employees of fellow 
enrolled subcontractors. 
THE QUESTION OF STATE LAW 
{¶ 8} Following the summary-judgment decision, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and 
TriVersity moved the federal court to certify a question of state law to this court.  
The federal court granted the motion and certified to us the following question: 
 
 
Whether Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4123.35 and 4123.74 provide 
immunity to subcontractors enrolled in a Workers’ Compensation 
self-insurance plan from tort claims made by employees of [other] 
enrolled subcontractors injured while working on the self-insured 
project. 
                                                      
                                                 
1 J & B Steel, Messer, D.A.G., and TriVersity are the petitioners in this action.  Terracon and 
Pendleton, who were not enrolled subcontractors, did not assert an immunity defense.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
(Brackets sic.)  We accepted the question, 142 Ohio St.3d 1515, 2015-Ohio-2341, 
33 N.E.3d 64, and granted Messer’s motion to be designated as a petitioner 
alongside the three petitioning subcontractors, 143 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2015-Ohio-
3021, 34 N.E.3d 935. 
ANALYSIS 
Applicable canons of statutory construction 
{¶ 9} When a court interprets the meaning of a statute, “[w]ords and phrases 
shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and 
common usage,”  R.C. 1.42, and the court must give effect to all of the statute’s 
words,  Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376, 380, 674 N.E.2d 678 (1997).  “If the 
meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, it must be applied as written 
and no further interpretation is necessary.”  State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996).  
Additionally, a court must give effect to the natural and most obvious import of a 
statute’s language, avoiding any subtle or forced constructions.  Ohio 
Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott, 139 Ohio St.3d 536, 2014-Ohio-2440, 13 N.E.3d 
1115, ¶ 22. 
Ohio’s statutory scheme for workers’ compensation   
{¶ 10} Ohio’s workers’ compensation scheme is codified in Chapter 4123 
of the Revised Code. 
{¶ 11} R.C. Chapter 4123 requires most employers to pay premiums into 
the state insurance fund that administers and pays out workers’ compensation 
claims.  R.C. 4123.35(A).  In return for these premium payments, an employer, in 
most cases, receives immunity from claims for common-law and statutory damages 
made by its employees “for any injury, or occupational disease, or bodily condition, 
received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his 
employment” or for any resulting death.  R.C. 4123.74. 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
{¶ 12} Ohio’s workers’ compensation law contains a special carve-out for 
“self-insuring employers,” who do not pay into the state insurance fund.  R.C. 
4123.35(B).  Employers eligible for the carve-out “may be granted the privilege to 
pay individually compensation, and furnish medical, surgical, nursing, and hospital 
services and attention and funeral expenses directly to injured employees or the 
dependents of killed employees.”  Id.  In return for providing this coverage, self-
insuring employers receive the same protections against employee claims as those 
paying into the state fund.  R.C. 4123.74. 
{¶ 13} At issue in this case is a specific class of self-insuring employers 
recognized in the workers’ compensation scheme: those involved in a construction 
project that is “scheduled for completion within six years after the date the project 
begins” and has total estimated costs in excess of $100 million.  R.C. 4123.35(O).  
As Messer did with respect to the Casino Project, the general contractor of a 
qualifying construction project may seek to self-insure the project and provide 
workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees as well as the employees 
of “[a]ll contractors and subcontractors who perform labor or work or provide 
materials for the construction project” or “[a]ll contractors and * * * a substantial 
number of all the subcontractors who perform labor or work or provide materials 
for the construction project.”  R.C. 4123.35(O).  In return for providing this 
coverage and satisfying other related statutory obligations, the self-insuring 
employer gains protection against claims arising from the work-related injury or 
death of any of its own employees as well as the employees of any subcontractors 
that are enrolled in the self-insurance plan.  R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74. 
{¶ 14} A subcontractor who enrolls in the contractor’s self-insurance 
program does not pay workers’ compensation premiums to the state for the payroll 
that it reports for work performed at the construction site by covered employees.  
R.C. 4123.35(O).  According to Stolz, subcontractors interested in enrolling in the 
self-insurance program deduct their costs for workers’ compensation premiums 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
from their bids to the contractor because this expense will be undertaken by the 
self-insured employer for the project. 
Application of R.C. Chapter 4123 to the certified question 
{¶ 15} The parties agree that a general contractor that is a self-insuring 
employer on the project receives immunity from suits by its own employees as well 
as the employees of enrolled subcontractors arising from injuries or death occurring 
in the course of work on the project.  It is also undisputed that the subcontractor 
who actually employs a worker who is injured or killed on the job is protected from 
that worker’s claims.  At issue here is whether an enrolled subcontractor is subject 
to claims by an employee of a different enrolled subcontractor working on the same 
self-insured construction project. 
{¶ 16} In support of his argument that enrolled subcontractors are not 
immune from suits by other enrolled subcontractors’ employees on the project, 
Stolz relies on the placement of the apostrophes in the phrase “contractor’s or 
subcontractor’s” in the following portion of R.C. 4123.35(O): 
 
The contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 
issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 
under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code with 
respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who are 
employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 
certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 
or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 
employment on that construction project. 
 
 (Emphasis added).  Stolz argues that because the italicized phrase employs singular 
possessive nouns, each subcontractor is protected only from claims brought by its 
own employees. 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
{¶ 17} Petitioners contend that all subcontractors enrolled in the 
construction project’s self-insurance plan are immune from suit by any covered 
employee.  They rely on a different portion of the same paragraph, stating, 
“[C]ontractors and subcontractors included under a certificate issued under this 
division are entitled to the protections provided under this chapter * * *.”  Id.  
Petitioners argue that this statutory language does not explicitly limit immunity to 
the employer-subcontractor and the self-insuring general contractor.  Instead, they 
assert, it offers expansive protection against claims from the employee of any 
enrolled subcontractor against any other enrolled subcontractor.  We find that the 
key to answering the certified question lies in R.C. 4123.35(O), though the relevant 
passage is not quoted by the parties. 
{¶ 18} Amid the complex statutory framework for workers’ compensation, 
the General Assembly has created a legal fiction in which the contractor who is the 
“self-insuring employer” is the legal employer, for workers’ compensation 
purposes, of all employees of enrolled subcontractors who are engaged in work at 
the construction site. 
{¶ 19} R.C. 4123.35(O) provides: 
 
A self-insuring employer who complies with this division is 
entitled to the protections provided under this chapter and Chapter 
4121. of the Revised Code with respect to the employees of the 
contractors and subcontractors covered under a certificate issued 
under this division for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, 
injuries, or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those 
employees’ employment on that construction project, as if the 
employees were employees of the self-insuring employer * * *. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
(Emphasis added.)  It is with this language that the General Assembly established 
the legal fiction that the self-insuring employer is the employer of all covered 
employees, including employees of enrolled subcontractors, for purposes of 
workers’ compensation.  That fiction is reiterated later in R.C. 4123.35(O) with the 
instruction that “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 
issued under this division shall identify in their payroll records the employees who 
are considered the employees of the self-insuring employer listed in that certificate 
for purposes of this chapter * * *.”  (Emphasis added). 
{¶ 20} When R.C. 4123.35(O) is read in conjunction with R.C. 4123.74, as 
it must be, see Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376, 380, 674 N.E.2d 678 (1997), 
the statute provides that the self-insuring employer, who through the legal fiction 
is the only employer on the project, will “not be liable to respond in damages at 
common law or by statute for any injury, or occupational disease, or bodily 
condition, received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out 
of” work on the self-insured construction project, R.C. 4123.74. 
{¶ 21} It is also through this legal fiction that the General Assembly gives 
effect to the provision in the law that “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included 
under a certificate issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 
under this chapter * * *.”  As described above, R.C. 4123.35(O) provides that for 
the purpose of workers’ compensation matters, the employer of all workers on the 
self-insured construction project is the self-insuring employer.  Thus, the General 
Assembly has made clear that for purposes of workers’ compensation, enrolled 
subcontractors do not have employees working on the construction project.  
Accordingly, those subcontractors cannot be liable for the workplace injuries of 
their own employees on the construction project under the workers’ compensation 
scheme—the general contractor is the responsible party. 
{¶ 22} Ohio law also limits recovery through tort law by employees or their 
families for workplace injury or death from any enrolled subcontractor on the 
January Term, 2016 
 
9
project, to the same extent that recovery is limited by workers’ compensation law.  
This is true because under the law an employee “who is injured as a result of a co-
employee’s negligent acts, who applied for benefits under Ohio’s workers’ 
compensation statutes, and whose injury is found to be compensable thereunder is 
precluded from pursuing any additional common-law or statutory remedy against 
such co-employee.”  Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91, 449 N.E.2d 1 (1983), 
paragraph one of the syllabus.  See also R.C. 4123.741.  Accordingly, a worker who 
may be compensated with workers’ compensation benefits is prevented from suing 
a co-employee (any other employee on the job site who is enrolled in the self-
insuring employer’s plan), and thus the worker cannot seek to hold the co-
employee’s actual employer vicariously liable in order to recover damages in tort.  
See Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594, 
2009-Ohio-3601, 913 N.E.2d 939, ¶ 22 (“a principal is vicariously liable only when 
an agent could be held directly liable”). 
Stolz’s Argument 
{¶ 23} In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the language on which 
Stolz focuses his argument:   
 
The contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 
issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 
under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code with 
respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who are 
employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 
certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 
or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 
employment on that construction project. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
R.C. 4123.35(O).  That language relates to the scope of protection a subcontractor 
enjoys through the self-insurance program.  The next sentence also relates to the 
limited class of covered employees: “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included 
under a certificate issued under this division shall identify in their payroll records 
the employees who are considered the employees of the self-insuring employer 
listed in that certificate for purposes of this chapter * * *.”  Id. 
{¶ 24} Read in context with the entirety of R.C. 4123.35(O), the import of 
this language is to clarify that only those employees working on the covered 
construction project are included in the self-insurance program and that they are 
covered only while they are engaged in work for the construction project.  The fact 
that a subcontractor is covered under the certificate for the self-insured construction 
project does not exempt the subcontractor from its independent obligation to obtain 
workers’ compensation coverage for those employees who are not working on the 
construction project.  Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of “contractor’s or 
subcontractor’s employees” in R.C. 4123.35(O), on which Stolz relies, is as a 
limitation on which employees are covered under the self-insurance plan, not which 
employers are entitled to immunity. 
{¶ 25} Because our interpretation is based on the plain, unambiguous 
language of the statute, we do not delve into the legislative history of the pertinent 
provisions.  Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N.E.2d 413 (1944), paragraph 
five of the syllabus (“An unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted”). 
{¶ 26} Nor may we reach Stolz’s policy argument that the social bargain of 
workers’ compensation begins to break down when a construction project is self-
insured.  Although we recognize that it has some merit, that argument must be 
directed to the General Assembly, rather than to this court. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 27} We conclude that R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 create a legal fiction 
that a self-insuring employer for a self-insured construction project is the single 
January Term, 2016 
 
11 
employer, for workers’ compensation purposes, of all employees working for 
enrolled subcontractors on that project.  Accordingly, Ohio’s workers’ 
compensation scheme provides immunity to subcontractors enrolled in a self-
insured construction project from the claims of employees of other enrolled 
subcontractors who are injured or killed while working on the project, provided that 
the injury, illness, or death is compensable under Ohio’s workers’ compensation 
laws.  Thus, we answer the certified state-law question in the affirmative. 
So answered. 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
FRENCH, J., dissents with an opinion that PFEIFER, J., joins. 
_____________________ 
 
FRENCH, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 28} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.  I agree that if the 
meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, we must apply it, and we need 
not interpret it further.  State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of 
Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996).  In my view, however, the 
correct analysis of R.C. 4123.35(O) does not require that any paragraph perform 
double duty in delineating the workers’ compensation status of the self-insuring 
employer, enrolled contractors and subcontractors, and employees of the enrolled 
contractors and subcontractors.  Instead, each of four sequential paragraphs in R.C. 
4123.35(O) sets up an aspect of the workers’ compensation scheme applicable to 
self-insured construction projects. 
{¶ 29} The sixth paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) creates a legal fiction in 
which the self-insuring employer is the employer of every enrolled contractor and 
subcontractor’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes.  It says: 
 
  
A self-insuring employer who complies with this division is 
entitled to the protections provided under this chapter and Chapter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
4121. of the Revised Code with respect to the employees of the 
contractors and subcontractors covered under a certificate issued 
under this division for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, 
injuries, or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those 
employees’ employment on that construction project, as if the 
employees were employees of the self-insuring employer, provided 
that the self-insuring employer also complies with this section.  No 
employee of the contractors and subcontractors covered under a 
certificate issued under this division shall be considered the 
employee of the self-insuring employer listed in that certificate for 
any purposes other than this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the 
Revised Code.  Nothing in this division gives a self-insuring 
employer authority to control the means, manner, or method of 
employment of the employees of the contractors and subcontractors 
covered under a certificate issued under this division. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  R.C. 4123.35(O). 
{¶ 30} R.C. 4123.35(O) requires the self-insuring employer to administer 
and pay these employees’ eligible workers’ compensation claims.  In return, the 
self-insuring employer receives protection from negligence suits.  In short, 
workers’ compensation benefits are an employee’s exclusive remedy against the 
self-insuring employer.  See Freese v. Consol. Rail Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 5, 7, 445 
N.E.2d 1110 (1983), citing Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 35. 
{¶ 31} The next paragraph—the one the parties primarily contest—extends 
the protections of R.C. Chapter 4121 and 4123 to the enrolled contractors and 
subcontractors.  But it specifies that each enrolled contractor or subcontractor 
receives this protection with respect solely to its own employees.  It provides: 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
13 
The contractors and subcontractors included under a 
certificate issued under this division are entitled to the protections 
provided under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code 
with respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who 
are employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 
certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 
or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 
employment on that construction project. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  R.C. 4123.35(O) (seventh paragraph). 
{¶ 32} This provision is necessary because the enrolled contractors and 
subcontractors do not actually pay workers’ compensation premiums for their 
employees on the project.  But the contractors and subcontractors’ employees 
remain employees of the contractor and subcontractor employers—even for 
workers’ compensation purposes—because the contractors and subcontractors 
retain “the right to control the manner or means of performing the work.”  Daniels 
v. MacGregor Co., 2 Ohio St.2d 89, 206 N.E.2d 554 (1965), syllabus; R.C. 
4123.35(O) (sixth paragraph, discussing self-insuring employer’s protections under 
R.C. Chapters 4121 and 4123).  And generally, to get the protection of the workers’ 
compensation statutes—immunity from common-law or statutory damages—an 
employer must pay into the state insurance fund for its employees.  Daniels at the 
syllabus, citing Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 35, and R.C. 4123.74.  
Therefore, only the language of the seventh paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) extends 
the protections of R.C. Chapters 4121 and 4123 to these actual employers who do 
not pay into the state insurance fund.  That is, the statute creates a second legal 
fiction in which the contractor or subcontractor employers receive the benefits of 
the workers’ compensation system without directly contributing to it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
{¶ 33} The next paragraph limits the self-insuring employer’s workers’ 
compensation responsibility to those employees who actually work on a particular 
project.  It begins: 
 
The contractors and subcontractors included under a 
certificate issued under this division shall identify in their payroll 
records the employees who are considered the employees of the self-
insuring employer listed in that certificate for purposes of this 
chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code, and the amount that 
those employees earned for employment on the construction project 
that is the subject of that certificate. 
 
R.C. 4123.35(O) (eighth paragraph). 
{¶ 34} This paragraph provides the mechanism that limits the self-insuring 
employer’s responsibility for administering and paying workers’ compensation 
claims to the enrolled contractors’ and subcontractors’ employees who actually 
work on the self-insured construction project.  It accomplishes this by requiring the 
enrolled contractors and subcontractors to identify in their payroll records their 
employees who, under the statute’s legal fiction, are considered employees of the 
self-insuring employer. 
{¶ 35} The next and, for our purposes, final paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) 
confirms that fellow-servant immunity does not bar employees of one enrolled 
contractor or subcontractor from suing employees of another enrolled contractor or 
subcontractor.  In short, this paragraph preserves an employee’s right to sue 
tortfeasors employed by other enrolled contractors or subcontractors.  The majority 
fails to consider this provision.  It provides:  
 
January Term, 2016 
 
15 
Nothing in this division shall be construed as altering the 
rights of employees under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the 
Revised Code as those rights existed prior to September 17, 1996.  
Nothing in this division shall be construed as altering the rights 
devolved under sections 2305.31 and 4123.82 of the Revised Code 
as those rights existed prior to September 17, 1996. 
 
R.C. 4123.35(O) (ninth paragraph). 
{¶ 36} By its plain language, this provision preserves an injured employee’s 
rights as they existed prior to September 17, 1996—the effective date of Sub.H.B. 
No. 245, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2955, which first introduced provisions 
substantially similar to those now contained in R.C. 4123.35(O), id. at 2971-2976.  
Then, as now, a worker who was injured on the job and who received workers’ 
compensation benefits from his employer’s participation in the workers’ 
compensation system could sue a tortfeasor who was employed by a different 
employer, subject to the subrogation rights of the workers’ compensation 
administrator or a self-insuring employer.  See R.C. 4123.931 (enacted in 1995, 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 278, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3581, 3595-3597; setting forth 
rights of subrogation with respect to a workers’ compensation claimant’s claims 
against third-party tortfeasors); R.C. 4123.93 (defining claimant, statutory 
subrogee, and third party for purposes of subrogation provision).  Therefore, an 
injured employee of one enrolled contractor or subcontractor may sue an employee 
of another enrolled contractor or subcontractor who caused the injury, as if the legal 
fiction created in R.C. 4123.35(O) did not exist.  
 
{¶ 37} In short, based on a comprehensive reading of the relevant 
provisions, I disagree with the majority’s ultimate holding that R.C. 4123.35(O) 
and 4123.74 preclude the employees of one enrolled contractor or subcontractor 
from suing in tort employees of another contractor or subcontractor—and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
recovering from the other contractor or subcontractor under respondeat superior 
principles.  Because I would answer the certified question in the negative, I dissent. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_____________________ 
Goodson & Co. and Brett C. Goodson, for respondent. 
Kohnen & Patton, L.L.P., and Colleen M. Blandford, for petitioner J & B 
Steel Erectors, Inc. 
Patsfall, Yeager & Pflum, L.L.C., Stephen M. Yeager, and Steve Patsfall, 
for petitioners D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc., and TriVersity Construction Co., 
L.L.C. 
Green & Green, Jane M. Lynch, and Jared A. Wagner, for petitioner Messer 
Construction Co. 
_____________________