[Cite as Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp, 134 Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-5639.] 

BENNETT, APPELLANT, v. ADMR., OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS’

COMPENSATION ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Cite as Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 134 Ohio St.3d 329, 

2012-Ohio-5639.] 

Workers’ Compensation—Scope of R.C. 4123.512 trial—De novo nature of trial 

pursuant to R.C. 4123.512 requires claimant to address all elements of a 

claimant’s right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund—

Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2011-0902—Submitted April 4, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, 

No. L-10-1185, 2011-Ohio-1264. 

________________ 

CUPP, J.

{¶ 1} This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of a workers’ 

compensation appeal in common pleas court pursuant to R.C. 4123.512. 

Specifically, we must resolve whether in that proceeding to determine a 

claimant’s right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund, the court is 

limited to considering those issues that were specifically determined by the 

Industrial Commission below, or whether the de novo nature of the proceeding 

obligates the claimant to present and the court to consider all the evidence 

necessary for determining the claimant’s right to participate. 

{¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we hold that the de novo nature of an 

R.C. 4123.512 appeal proceeding puts at issue all elements of a claimant’s right to 

participate in the workers’ compensation fund. We accordingly affirm the 

judgment of the court of appeals. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

I. Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 3} On February 28, 2006, appellant, Mark A. Bennett, was involved in 

an automobile accident while en route to the central office of his employer, 

Goodremont’s, Inc., in Toledo. About a month later, Bennett filed a claim with 

the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) for injuries to his head, neck, 

and back that he claimed to have suffered in the accident, along with his statement 

that he had been treated for a concussion and multiple disk herniation.1

 Bennett 

claimed that his main office was in his home and that therefore, he was on 

company business when he was injured en route to his employer’s office. 

Goodremont’s denied certification of the claim, asserting that the accident 

occurred while Bennett was commuting to work, and therefore, “his workday had 

not yet begun.” 

{¶ 4} The BWC issued an initial order disallowing the claim, stating, “The 

employee did not sustain an injury in the course of and arising out of 

employment. The employee was going to or coming from work.” Upon 

Bennett’s administrative appeal of that order, a district hearing officer for the 

Industrial Commission held a hearing and affirmed the order of the BWC 

disallowing the claim. Bennett appealed that order also, but a staff hearing officer 

for the Industrial Commission upheld the disallowance of the claim. Under R.C. 

4123.511(E), the Industrial Commission declined to hear Bennett’s further appeal. 

Its order informed Bennett of the opportunity to appeal to the common pleas court 

pursuant to R.C. 4123.512, adding that decisions as to the extent of disability are 

not appealable. 

 

1. Bennett has filed in this court a supplement to his merit brief that contains several documents 

pertaining to the proceedings before the BWC and the Industrial Commission, including filed 

forms and administrative decisions. Many of the items in the supplement are not contained in the 

trial court record and normally would not be considered by this court for that reason. See

S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.1(A) (a supplement is to contain portions of the “record”). However, the brief of 

the administrator of the BWC accepts the validity of these documents, and we therefore recognize 

their authenticity. 
January Term, 2012 

3 

{¶ 5} Bennett then filed an R.C. 4123.512 petition in the Lucas County 

Court of Common Pleas, seeking a determination of his right to participate in the 

workers’ compensation fund. Goodremont’s and the administrator of the BWC 

filed separate motions for summary judgment, both asserting that Bennett’s 

participation in the fund was foreclosed by the “coming-and-going rule” and that 

any injuries Bennett suffered while commuting to the office did not occur “in the 

course of, and arising out of,” his employment pursuant to R.C. 4123.01(C). See

Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 117, 119, 689 N.E.2d 917 (1998), 

paragraph one of the syllabus. The trial court accepted those arguments and 

granted the motions for summary judgment, determining that the coming-andgoing rule barred Bennett’s participation in the workers’ compensation fund. 

{¶ 6} Bennett appealed that ruling to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. 

The appellate court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate, because 

viewed in a light most favorable to Bennett, the facts could support Bennett’s 

claim that he had no fixed place of work and therefore had not been commuting 

on the day of the accident. The court reversed and remanded to the trial court for 

further proceedings. Bennett v. Goodremont’s, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-08-1193, 

2009-Ohio-2920, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 7} Upon remand, the trial court held a bench trial, at which the BWC 

administrator asserted in his opening statement that Bennett had to show both an 

injury proximately caused by the accident and that he had been on company 

business at the time of the injury. But Bennett presented his case only on his 

contention that his workers’ compensation claim was not barred by the comingand-going rule. The BWC administrator then immediately moved for a directed 

verdict, arguing that because Bennett had failed to provide any evidence of a 

compensable medical condition or injury and failed to establish through expert 

medical evidence a causal connection between the accident and the injury, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

Bennett had not sustained his burden to establish every element of his workers’ 

compensation claim. 

{¶ 8} Bennett opposed the motion by arguing that the nature of the injuries 

was not ripe for litigation and that the sole question before the court was whether 

the injury occurred in the course of Bennett’s employment. The trial court took 

the directed-verdict motion under advisement. The administrator then presented 

evidence that Bennett had been commuting to work when the accident occurred 

and therefore could not participate in the workers’ compensation fund. At the 

close of trial, the court ordered briefing on the issue of the scope of its review in 

the R.C. 4123.512 appeal. 

{¶ 9} The trial court later granted the administrator’s motion for a directed 

verdict. The trial court first concluded that Bennett had not been commuting at 

the time of the accident and therefore he was not precluded from participating in 

the workers’ compensation fund. But the court then held, “Bennett did not 

present medical evidence to establish a compensable injury nor a causal 

relationship between such an injury and his accident” and so he “failed to 

establish he is entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund.” 

{¶ 10} The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed. Bennett v. 

Goodremont’s, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-10-1185, 2011-Ohio-1264, ¶ 1. That court 

first reviewed precedent establishing that (1) a trial court in an R.C. 4123.512 

appeal from the Industrial Commission’s denial of a workers’ compensation claim 

has a duty to determine the claimant’s right to participate in the workers’ 

compensation fund in a trial de novo, citing Ward v. Kroger Co., 106 Ohio St.3d 

35, 2005-Ohio-3560, 830 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 8-9, (2) a trial court has no discretion to 

remand the case to the Industrial Commission because “de novo” by definition 

precludes remand, (3) a trial court’s decision pursuant to R.C. 4123.512 is based 

on the evidence presented to the court, not the evidence that was presented to the 

Industrial Commission, and (4) the claimant’s right to participate in the fund is 
January Term, 2012 

5 

predicated on showing by a preponderance of the evidence both that the injury 

arose out of and in the course of employment and that a causal relationship 

existed between the injury and the harm or disability. Id. at ¶ 11-12. 

{¶ 11} The appellate court then applied that precedent to reject Bennett’s 

claim that the trial court erred in placing the burden on him to establish any 

injury-relatedness or causation in his R.C. 4123.512 appeal because those issues 

were not considered in the administrative rulings. The court accordingly rejected 

Bennett’s accompanying contention that the court should have remanded the 

cause to the Industrial Commission after ruling that the accident occurred in the 

course of his employment. The appellate court reiterated that a de novo 

proceeding precludes remand and held that Bennett’s failure to establish a causal 

relationship between the accident and the claimed injury justified the trial court’s 

grant of the administrator’s directed-verdict motion. Id. at ¶ 13-14. 

{¶ 12} Bennett’s alternative argument, that he did present and/or the court 

could infer sufficient evidence of injury and its causation to create a question of 

fact on the issues was also rejected by the appellate court. Id. at ¶ 20. It held that 

Bennett had “failed to claim a specific injury for which he was seeking a right to 

participate in the fund, or provide any expert medical testimony showing a 

proximate causal relationship between any alleged injuries and his automobile 

accident.” Id. at ¶ 21. 

{¶ 13} We accepted Bennett’s appeal under our discretionary jurisdiction 

for review of a single proposition of law. Bennett v. Goodremont’s, Inc., 129 

Ohio St.3d 1487, 2011-Ohio-5129, 954 N.E.2d 661. That proposition asserts, 

“The only issue(s) to be considered in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal are those which 

were determined in the administrative order appealed.” 

II. Analysis 

{¶ 14} Under Civ.R. 50(A)(4), a motion for a directed verdict should be 

granted if “the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative 

issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence 

submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party.” Because a motion for a 

directed verdict presents a question of law, appellate review of a trial court’s 

decision on the motion is de novo. White v. Leimbach, 131 Ohio St.3d 21, 2011-

Ohio-6238, 959 N.E.2d 1033, ¶ 22; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & 

Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 2002-Ohio-2842, 769 N.E.2d 835, ¶ 4. 

{¶ 15} Bennett’s essential argument is that the trial and appellate courts 

erred in their view of the scope of his R.C. 4123.512 appeal and that once the trial 

court determined that the accident occurred in the course of his employment, it 

should have remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. Bennett 

asserts that the trial court should not have placed an obligation on him to also 

establish any injury-related and causation aspects of his claim because the 

previous administrative consideration went solely to what he refers to as the basic 

“validity” of his claim and therefore did not address the “injury” aspects in any 

way. 

{¶ 16} Bennett’s arguments in this regard, however, fail to take into 

account the unique features of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal that differentiate it from 

other types of administrative appeals, and they ignore the extensive body of 

authoritative case law on the scope of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal that the lower 

courts here correctly applied. 

{¶ 17} The starting points for our analysis are the long-established 

principles that an R.C. 4123.512 appeal is de novo, in which a claimant bears the 

burden of proving his or her right to participate in the workers’ compensation 

fund regardless of an Industrial Commission decision. R.C. 4123.512(D), the 

controlling law, provides: “The court * * * shall determine the right of the 

claimant to participate in the fund upon the evidence adduced at the hearing of the 

action.” See also Benton v. Hamilton Cty. Educational Serv. Ctr., 123 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2012 

7 

347, 2009-Ohio-4969, 916 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 14 (“appeal under R.C. 4123.512(D) 

involves a de novo review in which the claimant has the burden of proof” as to 

whether a claimant can participate in the fund); Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc., 108 

Ohio St.3d 533, 2006-Ohio-1712, 844 N.E.2d 1193, ¶ 22 (in an R.C. 4123.512 

appeal, “[o]ur opinions have consistently held” that a claimant “continues to carry 

the burden of initially filing the petition and proving her cause of action in what is 

essentially a trial de novo”); Afrates v. Lorain, 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 26, 584 N.E.2d 

1175 (1992) (recognizing that appeals pursuant to former R.C. 4123.519 (now 

4123.512)2

 are “subject to de novo review” while holding that the only decisions 

reviewable pursuant to the statute “are those decisions involving a claimant’s 

right to participate or to continue to participate in the fund”); Youghiogheny & 

Ohio Coal Co. v. Mayfield, 11 Ohio St.3d. 70, 71, 464 N.E.2d 133 (1984) (“The 

appeal authorized by [former] R.C. 4123.519 [now 4123.512] is unique in that it 

is considered a trial de novo”). 

{¶ 18} Furthermore, to establish the right to participate in the fund, a 

claimant has always had to show by a preponderance of the evidence both that the 

injury arose out of and in the course of employment and that a proximate causal 

relationship existed between the injury and the harm or disability. White Motor 

Corp. v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.2d 156, 357 N.E.2d 1069 (1976), paragraph one of the 

syllabus; Oswald v. Connor, 16 Ohio St.3d 38, 41-42, 476 N.E.2d 658 (1985). 

See Fox v. Indus. Comm., 162 Ohio St. 569, 125 N.E.2d 1 (1955), paragraph one 

of the syllabus. 

 

2. Former R.C. 4123.519 was amended and renumbered as R.C. 4123.512, effective October 20, 

1993. Am.Sub.H.B. No. 107, 145 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2990, 3153-3156. For purposes here, the 

relevant statutory provisions are essentially the same. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

{¶ 19} In Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 

361, 368, 691 N.E.2d 667 (1998),3

 this court explained that an R.C. 4123.512 

appeal “necessitates a new trial, without reference to the administrative claim file 

or consideration of the results of the administrative hearings” and “is not a record 

review or an error proceeding.” Rather, pursuant to the key final sentence of R.C. 

4123.512(D), “[t]he court, or the jury under the instructions of the court, if a jury 

is demanded, shall determine the right of the claimant to participate or to continue 

to participate in the fund upon the evidence adduced at the hearing of the action.” 

{¶ 20} As especially significant to our inquiry, Robinson fully endorsed 

the following reasoning from Marcum v. Barry, 76 Ohio App.3d 536, 539-540, 

602 N.E.2d 419 (10th Dist.1991), calling that analysis “particularly poignant”: 

“Although labeled an appeal and commenced initially by 

the filing of a notice of appeal, the action in the common pleas 

court under R.C. 4123.519 [now 4123.512] seeking a 

redetermination of a decision of the Industrial Commission is not 

a traditional error proceeding[ ] * * *. R.C. 4123.519 [now 

4123.512] contemplates not only a full and complete de novo

determination of both facts and law but also contemplates that 

such determination shall be predicated not upon the evidence 

 

3. The syllabus of Robinson held, “When an employer has appealed a decision of the Industrial 

Commission to a court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.512, the court of common pleas may 

subsequently grant a motion to voluntarily dismiss the employer’s complaint without prejudice 

under Civ.R. 41(A)(2).” This holding, along with the holding in Kaiser v. Ameritemps, Inc., 84 

Ohio St.3d 411, 704 N.E.2d 1212 (1999), regarding a claimant’s ability to voluntarily dismiss an 

employer’s R.C. 4123.512 appeal pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), has since been superseded by 

statute. See Thorton v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-360, 

902 N.E.2d 482, ¶ 5 (R.C. 4123.512(D), as amended in 2006, now requires that in an employer 

appeal under R.C. 4123.512, “the claimant may not dismiss the complaint without the employer’s 

consent”). This provision does not apply to claims that arose before August 25, 2006, the 

effective date of the amendment. Id. at ¶ 20. Discussion in Robinson regarding the nature of an 

R.C. 4123.512 appeal is not affected by this statutory amendment. 
January Term, 2012 

9 

adduced before the Industrial Commission but, instead, upon 

evidence adduced before the common pleas court as in any civil 

action, which may involve a jury trial if demanded. The 

proceedings are de novo both in the sense of receipt of evidence 

and determination. The common pleas court, or the jury if it be 

the factual determiner, makes the determination de novo without 

consideration of, and without deference to, the decision of the 

Industrial Commission. R.C. 4123.519 [now 4123.512] 

contemplates a full de novo hearing and determination. * * * 

“* * * With respect to an R.C. 4123.519 [now 4123.512] 

appeal, there are no words such as ‘review, affirm, modify, or 

reverse’ as are contained in R.C. 2505.02, nor even the word 

‘affirm’ or the words ‘reverse, vacate, or modify’ as set forth in 

R.C. 119.12 with respect to administrative appeals generally. 

Rather, the express language of R.C. 4123.519 is that contained in 

division (C) [now section (D) of R.C. 4123.512] that the court or 

jury shall ‘determine the right of the claimant to participate or to 

continue to participate in the fund upon the evidence adduced at 

the hearing of the action.’ (Emphasis added.)” (Citations 

omitted.) 

Robinson, 81 Ohio St.3d at 368, 691 N.E.2d 667. 

{¶ 21} The specific issue before the Tenth District in Marcum was 

whether the entire case in an R.C. 4123.519 (now 4123.512) proceeding “is before 

the court of common pleas de novo so that all factual and legal issues are to be 

resolved by that court” or whether the appeal is an error proceeding in which the 

common pleas court, if it determines that a legal error is present, may remand the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

matter to the Industrial Commission. Id., 76 Ohio App.3d at 537, 602 N.E.2d 

419. 

{¶ 22} After setting forth the analysis quoted above in Robinson, the court 

in Marcum further concluded that the full and complete de novo nature of the 

appeal precludes a remand to the Industrial Commission in this situation: 

[A] court of common pleas in an appeal from a decision of the 

Industrial Commission has no power to remand the cause to the 

Industrial Commission for further proceedings—the equivalent of a 

new trial before the Industrial Commission. Nor is such power 

somehow conferred because the Industrial Commission applied the 

wrong rule of law in determining the matter upon its facts. There is 

a mandatory duty upon a court of common pleas to proceed to a 

final determination of the appealed issues, especially the right to 

participate in the Workers’ Compensation Fund upon the law and 

the evidence adduced before that court. Such duty cannot be 

avoided by remand to the Industrial Commission. 

Id. at 540-541. 

{¶ 23} Other appellate courts have consistently held that a remand to the 

Industrial Commission is not an option generally available to the trial court in an 

R.C. 4123.512 appeal concerning a claimant’s right to participate in the fund. 

See, e.g., Green v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 85 Ohio App.3d 223, 226, 619 N.E.2d 497 

(9th Dist.1993) (“the duty imposed upon the court by R.C. 4123.519(C) [now 

4123.512(D)] is mandatory. By [the statute’s] use of the word ‘shall’ the court is 

given no discretion to remand the case to the Industrial Commission for further 

proceedings, but must determine the claimant’s right to participate in the fund”); 

Aldridge v. LTV Steel Co., 5th Dist. No. 95-CA-0158, 1996 WL 74697, *1 (Jan. 
January Term, 2012 

11 

29, 1996) (R.C. 4123.512 “does not authorize a court to remand an action back to 

the commission”); Wagner v. Fulton Industries, Inc., 116 Ohio App.3d 51, 54, 

686 N.E.2d 559 (6th Dist.1997) (once an appeal from the Industrial Commission 

is taken pursuant to R.C. 4123.512, it is the trial court’s “mandatory responsibility 

to determine whether the claimant has a right to participate in the State Insurance 

Fund and the court has no discretion to remand the case to the commission”). See 

also Broyles v. Conrad, 2d Dist No. 20670, 2005-Ohio-2233, ¶ 15 (because R.C. 

4123.512 prohibits remand to the Industrial Commission when the Industrial 

Commission made no determination on the merits of the claim, the trial court 

must determine the claim’s merits, except as to the extent of disability, in the de 

novo trial required by R.C. 4123.512; if the court finds in favor of the claimant’s 

right to participate, only then does the case return to the Industrial Commission 

for an administrative determination of the extent of the claimant’s disability). 

{¶ 24} Several treatises on Ohio law have recognized the force of these 

precedents. See 1 Philip Fulton, Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law, Section 12.6 

(Rev.Ed.2012) (extensively quoting the decision in Marcum and describing it as 

“an informative and extensive discussion concerning the status of [a] de novo 

trial” to explain Marcum’s holding “that the court of common pleas had no power 

to remand for a claim to produce the equivalent of a new trial before the Industrial 

Commission despite the Industrial Commission’s application of the wrong rule of 

law in determining the matter upon its facts”); Jo Ann F. Wasil and Mark E. 

Mastrangelo, Baldwin’s Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law, Section 14:118 

(2009) (citing Marcum and other precedent in recognizing that as a general rule, a 

common pleas court in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal “has no power to remand a cause 

to the Commission for further proceedings”). 

{¶ 25} Bennett bases much of his argument on Ward, 106 Ohio St.3d 35, 

2005-Ohio-3560, 830 N.E.2d 1155. In Ward, we considered whether “the scope 

of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal is limited to the medical conditions addressed in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

order from which the appeal is taken.” Id. at ¶ 6. We resolved that issue by 

holding that a “claimant in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal may seek to participate in the 

Workers’ Compensation Fund only for those conditions that were addressed in the 

administrative order from which the appeal is taken.” Id. at syllabus. 

{¶ 26} Ward involved a discrete situation in which a specific medical 

condition was administratively considered and the claimant then attempted to add 

new conditions in his R.C. 4123.512 appeal. See id. at ¶ 1-3. The instant case 

does not involve that situation and is fundamentally distinguishable. 

{¶ 27} Ward, which specifically recognized that “an R.C. 4123.512 appeal 

is a de novo determination of fact, and law,” id. at ¶ 7, see also id. at ¶ 8, does not 

call into question the extensive authorities relied on by the trial court and the court 

of appeals here. As the appellate court in this case stated when it denied 

Bennett’s motion for reconsideration and rejected his arguments based on Ward: 

“Ward pertained to alleging new medical conditions. Such was not the scenario 

involved in the instant case. In addition, Ward reflects that a claimant must state 

a specific medical injury or condition as the basis of seeking compensation from 

the fund. The record clearly reflects that appellant failed to do so.” 

{¶ 28} If Bennett had prevailed at some level in the administrative 

proceedings on the question of his accident’s occurring in the course of his 

employment, in order to establish his right to participate in the fund, he would 

have been required to administratively prove the injury-related and causation 

aspects of his claim at whatever stage in the administrative proceedings he 

received a ruling in his favor on the course-of-employment question. See Starkey 

v. Builders FirstSource Ohio Valley, L.L.C., 130 Ohio St.3d 114, 2011-Ohio3278, 956 N.E.2d 267, ¶ 15 (claimants “must submit a medical diagnosis of an 

injury at the administrative level to prevail” and must “establish a causal 

connection between the documented physical harm and the industrial injury for it 

to be compensable”). R.C. 4123.512, with the requirement that a trial court 
January Term, 2012 

13 

conduct a de novo consideration upon the evidence presented at the hearing 

before it in order to determine a claimant’s right to participate in the fund, 

supports the conclusion that a claimant continues to bear the obligation to 

establish all aspects of the right to participate through the appeal to common pleas 

court. A trial court’s consideration in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal does not involve 

weighing evidence regarding the extent of a claimant’s disability. Instead, the 

right to participate is a separate matter that the claimant must establish in the de 

novo proceeding conducted under R.C. 4123.512. 

{¶ 29} Bennett’s arguments are based to a considerable degree on the 

contention that an R.C. 4123.512 appeal is similar to administrative appeals in 

other contexts taken pursuant to different statutory authority. However, these 

arguments are conclusively rebutted by a comparison of the provisions of R.C. 

4123.512 to the provisions of a typical administrative-appeal statute such as R.C. 

119.12, as explained in Marcum in the analysis adopted by this court in Robinson. 

See Robinson, 81 Ohio St.3d at 368, 691 N.E.2d 667, quoting Marcum, 76 Ohio 

App.3d at 539, 602 N.E.2d 419 (words such as “ ‘affirm, * * * reverse, vacate, or 

modify,’ ” which appear in R.C. 119.12, are absent from R.C. 4123.512). 

{¶ 30} An R.C. 4123.512 appeal is by no means a “typical” administrative 

appeal, but is a distinctive appeal with unique characteristics. The legal analysis 

employed by the court of appeals in this case was in accord with the provisions of 

R.C. 4123.512 and with the relevant precedent, which properly delineates the 

scope of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal. The lower courts correctly determined that a 

remand for additional administrative proceedings upon the trial court’s conclusion 

that the coming-and-going rule did not bar participation in the fund was not an 

option under the controlling law. The fundamentals of the de novo appeal under 

R.C. 4123.512 required Bennett to establish his right to participate in the fund, 

including the injury-related and causation aspects of his claim relevant to that 

question, in the common pleas court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 31} For all the above reasons, we determine that the trial court and 

court of appeals were correct in their analysis of the specifics of a claimant’s 

burden in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal proceeding. We affirm the judgment of the 

court of appeals. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FISCHER, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., 

concur. 

LANZINGER, J., not participating. 

PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 

PATRICK F. FISCHER, J., of the First Appellate District, sitting for 

LANZINGER, J. 

__________________ 

PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 32} This case had been fought for years through every level of the 

worker’s compensation system, through the trial court on appeal, to the court of 

appeals, and back to the trial court over one issue: whether appellant, Mark 

Bennett, was in the course of his employment when his car was rear-ended and he 

was injured on his way to his employer’s place of business. At every level, this 

case had been about the “coming-and-going rule” and its application to Bennett. 

It had been about that rule to such an extent that Bennett’s employer and the 

Industrial Commission had never disputed that Bennett was, in fact, injured in the 

car accident. 

{¶ 33} Finally, more than four years after Bennett’s accident, the factual 

issue of whether the accident occurred when Bennett was working—or was 

merely on his way to work—was to be settled by the trial judge. But then came a 

“Gotcha” moment: after Bennett presented his evidence, counsel for appellee 

administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) moved for a directed 
January Term, 2012 

15 

verdict. He argued that Bennett had not proven an injury or that the accident was 

a direct and proximate cause of his injury. What had never been an issue 

suddenly became the deciding issue in the case. The trial court did not rule on the 

motion immediately, but after posttrial briefing, ruled in the favor of the 

administrator. 

{¶ 34} I would hold that the issue of Bennett’s injury was conceded by his 

employer and the administrator, and based upon the trial court’s holding that 

Bennett was indeed injured in the course of his employment, I would order this 

case back to the BWC for a determination of the extent of Bennett’s injury. 

{¶ 35} From the beginning and throughout this entire case, Bennett’s 

injury has been conceded. In its answer to Bennett’s petition/complaint, 

Goodremont’s admitted that Bennett had been injured in the accident at issue. 

Paragraph four of Bennett’s complaint reads: “As a result of the collision, Mr. 

Bennett suffered bodily injuries, required and requires medical treatment, has had 

a loss of income and has been disabled.” 

{¶ 36} The answer of Goodremont’s reads at paragraph four: 

“Goodremont’s states that Mr. Bennett was injured on February 28, 2006, but 

otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint for want of 

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶ 37} In a motion for summary judgment filed on July 20, 2007, the 

appellees admitted that Bennett had been injured. Whether Bennett was injured 

played no part at all in their motion for summary judgment. And they made a 

statement that would be repeated over and over again throughout the life of the 

case, acknowledging Bennett’s injury: 

{¶ 38} “At approximately 7:42 a.m. on February 28, 2006, Bennett was 

injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by another driver while Bennett was 

stopped at an on-ramp yield sign off of Central Ave. waiting to enter the on-ramp 

to Northbound I-475.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

{¶ 39} On September 12, 2007, appellees made a further admission of 

Bennett’s injury. In a motion in limine (attached as an appendix), the appellees 

requested the trial court to “exclude the admission and presentation of any 

evidence, including witness testimony and any and all documents, at trial * * * 

concerning the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and the cost of related medical 

services resulting from the motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiff, Mark 

Bennett * * * was involved on February 28, 2006 on the grounds that such 

evidence is irrelevant to the sole issue in this case—whether Plaintiff is entitled to 

participate in the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Fund, such evidence is barred by 

the Civil Rules, and such evidence would be needlessly time-consuming at trial.” 

{¶ 40} The appellees framed the issue as solely about the “coming and 

going” rule. “[T]he extent of Bennett’s injuries is not at issue in this case * * *. 

Therefore, [those witnesses] cannot possibly have any relevant information 

concerning the purely legal issue in this case—whether the motor vehicle accident 

at issue * * * occurred in the course of and arose from Bennett’s employment at 

Goodremont’s.” 

{¶ 41} The appellees also made a familiar admission in that motion: “On 

February 28, 2006, Bennett was involved in a motor vehicle accident while 

driving his personal vehicle on his way from his home to Goodremont’s Toledo 

office for a customer demonstration scheduled to take place that morning. (Mark 

Bennett Deposition Transcript, filed in this case on July 18, 2007, pp. 20-21.) 

Bennett was injured at 7:42 a.m. on February 28, 2006, when his vehicle was rearended by another driver while Bennett was stopped at an on-ramp yield sign off of 

Central Ave. waiting to enter the on-ramp to Northbound I-475. (id. pp. 19-20).” 

{¶ 42} The appellees wrote that Bennett had already provided evidence of 

his injuries: “Bennett’s responses to discovery requests served by undersigned 

counsel for Goodremont’s, Inc. and by undersigned counsel for the Administrator 

of the BWC included detailed information and medical records concerning the 
January Term, 2012 

17 

extent of Bennett’s injuries and the cost of related medical services allegedly 

resulting from those injuries.” 

{¶ 43} The appellees asked for other documents and witnesses to be 

excluded: “Therefore, because medical records, medical expenses incurred, and 

the testimony of Bennett’s relatives and former co-workers at a previous job are 

not relevant to the sole issue before this Court, all such testimony and documents 

should be excluded from trial under Ohio Rule of Evidence 402 [relevant 

evidence is generally admissible].” Does not requesting a ban on evidence of the 

extent of the injury constitute an admission that there is, in fact, an injury? 

{¶ 44} The trial court never ruled on the motion in limine, and it was 

never withdrawn. But the trial court did grant appellees’ motion for summary 

judgment, deciding the issue entirely on the “coming and going” rule. Yet the 

court did note that Bennett had suffered an injury, writing, “At 7:42 a.m. on that 

day, February 28, 2006, Mr. Bennett sustained injuries while in his automobile on 

his way to the office when another driver rear-ended him. (Bennett depo. 19-20).” 

{¶ 45} Bennett sought reversal of that summary judgment at the court of 

appeals and won. The court held: 

On the basis of these facts, a reasonable factfinder might 

well conclude that Bennett’s employment situs was non-fixed, in 

which case the coming-and-going rule would not apply to preclude 

recovery for Bennett. Because there remains a genuine issue of fact 

with respect to this issue, the trial court’s granting of summary 

judgment on the basis of the coming-and-going rule was clearly 

inappropriate. 

Bennett v. Goodremont’s, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-08-1193, 2009-Ohio-2920, ¶ 20. 

The case was remanded to the trial court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

18 

{¶ 46} In interrogatories filed with the court on February 18, 2010, 

appellees asked Bennett: “State with specificity the injury(ies) and/or medical 

conditions that are alleged as being compensable and are the subject of this 

appeal.” Bennett responded, “I received back and neck injuries resulting in 

surgery. I am presently totally disabled.” 

{¶ 47} Finally, during the trial on April 16, 2010, the shocked counsel for 

the administrator realized that Bennett was never injured at all and moved for a 

directed verdict. Four good years of litigation wasted over a fellow who was 

never even hurt! 

{¶ 48} What followed was a second trip to the appellate court and a trip to 

this court to battle over an elemental fact that everyone involved in this case 

actually agrees on: Bennett was hurt. The appellees should be irretrievably bound 

to the admissions they consistently made throughout this case, and this case 

should be over. 

{¶ 49} In arriving at its conclusion that the judgment of the Sixth District 

Court of Appeals should be affirmed, the majority engages in a discussion of this 

court’s decision in Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp., 81 Ohio St.3d 

361, 368, 691 N.E.2d 667 (1998), and instruction it finds in the Tenth District 

Court of Appeals case of Marcum v. Barry, 76 Ohio App.3d 536, 539-540, 602 

N.E.2d 419 (10th Dist.1991). Informative, but not useful in this matter. Neither 

party disputes that if Bennett had prevailed, this matter would necessarily be 

returned to the Industrial Commission and ultimately to the BWC for an 

administrative determination of the level of benefits and compensation 

appropriate for Bennett’s injuries. See R.C. 4123.512(G). That would be the case 

no matter what evidence Bennett could have presented at trial regarding his 

specific medical injuries. The real decision about the compensation due Bennett 

would come from the BWC. 
January Term, 2012 

19 

{¶ 50} The supposed de novo nature of the trial—“de novo” does not 

appear in R.C. 4123.512—in this case is vastly overstated. The injuries a 

claimant can allege at trial are controlled by what he alleged at the BWC, and the 

verdict in the trial has no real meaning until it becomes the holding of the BWC 

and it makes its decision regarding compensation. The de novo trial is bookended 

and controlled by what happens at the BWC. Only the barest proof of injury is 

necessary at trial. 

{¶ 51} This matter has been twice to a trial court and twice to the Sixth 

District Court of Appeals and now to this court, without any BWC administrative 

determination on the injuries—which still remains a prerequisite to any 

compensation award to Bennett. That was the exact argument advanced by the 

defendants to preclude injury and medical testimony on the R.C. 4123.512 appeal 

by Bennett. After losing their “coming and going” arguments in this case, the 

defendants ask this court to convert the sword they wielded in their motion in 

limine into a shield from liability when Bennett accepted their position and did 

not offer his medical evidence at trial. 

{¶ 52} The cases discussed in the majority opinion bear no relationship to 

the facts and procedural posture of Bennett’s claim for compensation. The 

majority opinion allows the defendants here to set a “bear trap” for Bennett by 

ignoring the admissions contained throughout the litigation and in their motion in 

limine. Perhaps one should not be surprised that there are employers and 

attorneys in this state that are comfortable with the legal subterfuge present in this 

case. It is quite a surprise that the attorney general and the BWC/Industrial 

Commission would not just go along for the ride, but actively participate. This is 

not just a case of justice delayed; it is most certainly a case of justice denied. I 

dissent. 

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

20 

 Kennedy, Purdy, Hoeffel & Gernert, L.L.C., and Paul E. Hoeffel, for 

appellant. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor 

General, Elisabeth A. Long and Matthew P. Hampton, Deputy Solicitors, and 

Joshua W. Lanzinger, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Administrator, 

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 

________________________ 

THE APPENDIX TO JUSTICE PFEIFER’S DISSENTING OPINION 

APPEARS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 
January Term, 2012 

21 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

22 
January Term, 2012 

23 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

24 
January Term, 2012 

25 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

26