Case Name: Theodore LUCIO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEVY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-30
Citations: 670 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 16-3403
Parties: Theodore LUCIO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEVY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 889–890

Head Matter:
Theodore LUCIO, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LEVY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al. Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-3403
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed November 30, 2016
Kevin J. Boissoneault, Jonathan M. Ash-ton, Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaf-fer, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Stuart J. Goldberg, Lynn Vuketich Luther, Eastman & Smith, Toledo, OH, for Defendants-Appellees Levy Environmental Services Company, Butler Mill Service Company, Fulton Mill Service Company
David J. Simko, Shindler, Neff, Holmes, Schlageter & Mohler, Toledo, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
BEFORE: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity employee-injury case, plaintiff Theodore Lucio appeals the grant of summary judgment for defendant Levy Environmental Services Company and its affiliated entities. Lucio fell from a slag-mill tower owned by Levy and suffered serious and permanent injuries. He received Ohio workers' compensation bene fits, but also brought suit against Levy-under Ohio Rev. Code § 2745.01, which allows an employee to recover outside the workers' compensation system for an employer's intentional tort. The district court excluded the opinion of Lucio's expert in part, and granted summary judgment for lack of evidence of intent to injure on the part of Levy. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court's opinion correctly sets out the facts and governing law. Because this court's issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplica-tive, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. Lucio v. Levy Environmental Services Co., 173 F.Supp.3d 558 (N.D. Ohio 2016).