Court Opinion

ID: 9882988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:53.435483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:16.195458
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Sammour v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2023-Ohio-2843.]

                             IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 IBRAHIM SAMMOUR                                      Case No. 2022-00681JD

        Plaintiff                                     Judge Lisa L. Sadler
                                                      Magistrate Scott Sheets
        v.
                                                      ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND                           MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 FAMILY SERVICES

        Defendant

        {¶1} Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, to which
Plaintiff did not respond. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
        {¶2} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in
Civ.R. 56(C), which states, in part:
        Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
        depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,
        transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in
        the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
        that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
        No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.
        A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the
        evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that
        reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is
        adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is
        made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed
        most strongly in the party’s favor.
“[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis
for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which
Case No. 2022-00681JD                        -2-                                    ENTRY

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on a material element of the
nonmoving party’s claim.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264
(1996). To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary
materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293.
       {¶3} If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party bears a
reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which states, in part:
       When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided
       in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or
       denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as
       otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that
       there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary
       judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.
       {¶4} Plaintiff, who is self-represented, alleges defendant unlawfully delayed
payment of his unemployment benefits before paying the benefits in “incorrect amounts.”
Complaint ¶ 12. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions led to his bankruptcy and
eviction, as well as his family being placed in jeopardy. He seeks $5 million in damages.
Complaint ¶¶ 13-14.
       {¶5} In support of its motion for summary judgment, Defendant submitted the
affidavit of Tonya Reese, who it employs as a Claims Specialist. Ms. Reese’s affidavit
establishes that Plaintiff “filed several applications for unemployment benefits in 2021.”
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Tonya Reese, ¶ 4. Initially, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim. This
denial resulted in plaintiff’s subsequent employment applications being “adjudicated and
denied as ‘previously denied.’” Id. ¶ 5. Thus, “[a] system issue combined with the several
claims and the initial denial by the employer filed by the Plaintiff resulted in a delay of
benefits being paid.” Id. ¶ 9. However, Defendant eventually resolved all issues and paid
unemployment benefits in the correct amount to plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 7-8; 10. While his claims
were pending, Plaintiff sought updates from Defendant via several phone calls. Id. ¶¶ 2-
3; Ex. B thereto. The above facts are not disputed.
       {¶6} Defendant asserts that it performed a public duty in reviewing and paying
Plaintiff’s unemployment claims and, therefore, that it is entitled to public duty immunity.
“Generally, the state is ‘immune from liability in any civil action or proceeding involving
Case No. 2022-00681JD                       -3-                                    ENTRY

the performance or nonperformance of a public duty.’” Lawrence v. Meridian Senior
Living, L.L.C., 2016-Ohio-8500, 79 N.E.3d 1158, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.), quoting
R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a). As defined in R.C. 2743.01(E)(1), “‘[p]ublic duty’ includes, but is
not limited to, any statutory, regulatory, or assumed duty concerning any action or
omission of the state involving any of the following: (a) Permitting, certifying, licensing,
inspecting, investigating, supervising, regulating, auditing, monitoring, law enforcement,
or emergency response activity * * *.”
       {¶7} However, the state is not immune from liability when a “special relationship”
exists between the state and the injured party.        R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(b).    A plaintiff
demonstrates a special relationship by proving “all of the following elements exist: (i) An
assumption by the state, by means of promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on
behalf of the party who was allegedly injured; (ii) Knowledge on the part of the state’s
agents that inaction of the state could lead to harm; (iii) Some form of direct contact
between the state’s agents and the injured party; (iv) The injured party’s justifiable
reliance on the state’s affirmative undertaking.” R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(b).
       {¶8} The Court finds Plaintiff seeks recovery for Defendant’s performance of a
public duty and, therefore, that Defendant is entitled to immunity.            Pursuant to
R.C. 4141.13(A)(10), Defendant has a statutory duty to “[r]eceive, hear, and decide
claims for unemployment benefits, and provide for the payment of such claims as are
allowed.”   In addition, R.C. 4141.13(A)(18) authorizes Defendant to “[m]ake such
investigations * * * as the director deems necessary or appropriate to facilitate the
administration of the unemployment compensation law.” Thus, in considering and/or
paying unemployment claims, Defendant conducts investigations.                Furthermore,
Defendant hears and considers unemployment claims as part of its general statutory duty
under R.C. 4141.13 to supervise, regulate, and/or monitor the state’s unemployment
compensation system. R.C. 2743.01(E)(1) specifically designates these actions as public
duties. See also Sammour v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00586JD (Jan.
5, 2022) (hearing and deciding workers’ compensation claims is a public duty which
immunity applies).
       {¶9} Thus, Defendant owes its various duties, including considering and paying
unemployment claims, to the general public rather than any particular individual. See
Case No. 2022-00681JD                        -4-                                     ENTRY

Estate of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019-Ohio-1794, 135 N.E.3d 1200, ¶ 36 (10th
Dist.), quoting Hurst v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 72 Ohio St.3d 325, 329, 650 N.E.2d 104
(1995) (“The [public duty] rule ‘is used to determine the first element of negligence, the
existence of a duty on the part of the state. If the duty owed is general in nature, the
wrong created by its breach is to the public in general and, therefore, not individually
actionable.’”). Accordingly, pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a), Defendant is immune from
liability in any civil action involving the performance or nonperformance of this public duty.
          {¶10} Moreover, there is no evidence that Defendant had any special relationship
with Plaintiff. In processing Plaintiff’s unemployment benefits claim, Defendant did not
assume any duty to act on Plaintiff’s specific behalf because a special relationship
requires that the state “do more than adhere to its statutory duty.” Commerce & Indus.
Ins. Co. v. City of Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96, 101, 543 N.E.2d 1188 (1989). Rather, the
state “must voluntarily assume some additional duty.” Id. As R.C. 4141.13(A)(10)
requires with any unemployment claim, Defendant investigated Plaintiff’s claim as a
neutral agent of the state. Therefore, as no special relationship existed, Defendant
retains immunity from Plaintiff’s claims.
          {¶11} Defendant has met its burden on summary judgment. There are no genuine
issues of material fact. After a delay in processing, Defendant eventually paid Plaintiff
the correct amount of unemployment benefits.             Moreover, as Defendant heard,
considered, and investigated plaintiff’s claim pursuant to its statutory obligations and no
special relationship existed, Defendant is immune and is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.
          {¶12} For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED. Court costs are assessed against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall serve upon all
parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

                                            LISA L. SADLER
                                            Judge
Case No. 2022-00681JD           -5-   ENTRY

Filed July 7, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/15/23