Article ID: 1f13d24f3a34bbc4d319f6bbfe482751f48d9d0b215546830ca1f25433231ccb
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
Body Text
Ohio appeals court revives worker’s claim over disputed subrogation fee - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Ohio appeals court revives worker’s claim over disputed subrogation fee by Louise Esola Claims Disputes , Workers Comp Coverage , Workplace Safety Apr 15, 2026 An Ohio appellate court on Tuesday revived a worker’s challenge to a disputed workers compensation subrogation charge, ruling that a state agency cannot rely on a settlement agreement to retain funds it was not legally entitled to collect. In Thomas v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation , the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and remanded the case for further proceedings. The dispute stems from a workplace-related car accident involving Lamar Thomas, who received workers compensation benefits and later settled a third-party negligence claim. Following that settlement, the bureau asserted a subrogation lien totaling about $6,044, which included $120 for an independent medical examination it had ordered. Mr. Thomas paid the full amount but later sued, arguing that the bureau improperly included the medical review fee in its subrogation demand. He sought reimbursement, contending the cost was not recoverable under Ohio law. The appellate court agreed, citing prior rulings — including a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio — that found the bureau is statutorily required to bear the cost of medical examinations it orders. As a result, such expenses do not fall within the definition of a recoverable “subrogation interest.” At issue on appeal was whether a prior settlement agreement between the parties barred Mr. Thomas’ claim. The bureau argued that the agreement created binding contractual rights covering the disputed fee. The appellate court rejected that argument, drawing a distinction between lawful contractual rights and attempts to enforce agreements that include unlawful charges. It held that a state agency “may not obtain vested contractual rights to funds it was not statutorily entitled to recoup,” and cannot shield improper conduct through settlement language. Because the medical examiner’s fee was never legally part of the subrogation lien, it was not encompassed by the settlement agreement, the court said. Related News Africa trade insurer seeks $500 million to help with Iran war cost hike April 15, 2026 Patriot Growth names transportation practice leader April 15, 2026 Hamilton launches casualty reinsurance sidecar April 15, 2026 Virginia governor signs workplace heat illness prevention bill April 15, 2026 Private equity broker recruits former Aon exec April 15, 2026 Maersk hikes cargo insurance rates up to 450% April 15, 2026 Volcano disruption halts flights, closes roads April 15, 2026 Korean Re eyes ship cover for Hormuz detours April 15, 2026 Covea’s profit doubles, combined ratio improves April 15, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 13.3
}