Opinion ID: 6343305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Barcus decision

Text: {¶ 47} Contrary to what Ugicom suggests, our decision upholding the bureau’s decision will not create any tension with Barcus, 2015-Ohio-3122. As the court of appeals aptly explained below, the scope of review in Barcus differed markedly from that required here. See Ugicom II, 2021-Ohio-1269, at ¶ 25. Barcus involved a worker’s appeal of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the worker’s purported employer, which the court of appeals then reviewed de novo, determining that the worker was an independent contractor. Barcus at ¶ 1-5, 32; Ugicom II at ¶ 25, citing Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54, 2010Ohio-4505, 936 N.E.2d 481, ¶ 29 (“Because this case was originally decided on summary judgment, our review is de novo”). It follows that because the court in Barcus was not bound by the some-evidence standard, that case does not furnish a helpful guide to our application of that standard here. 4. Ugicom intersperses its discussion of Lule with several references to an entity known as Jotin Enterprises, L.L.C. The bureau, however, made no findings as to Jotin. 16 January Term, 2022