IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DOUGLAS GROCH et al, On Questions Certified by the United States Petitioners, District Court for the Northern District of V. Ohio, Western Division GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al Case No. 2006-1914 Respondents U.S. District Court Case No. 3:06-CV-1604 MERIT BRIEF OF PETITIONER, DOUGLAS GROCH, VOLUME ONE . Kevin J. Boissoneault # 0040180 * Robert H. Eddy # 0030739 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record Theodore A. Bowman #0009159 * GALLAGHER SHARP Russell Geniey # 0080186 420 Madison Avenue, Suite 50 Bonnie E. Haiins # 0072465 * Toledo, Oh 43604 GALLON, TAKACS, BOISSONEAULT (419) 241-4860 & SCHAFFER Co. L.P.A. * (419) 241-4866 - fax 3516 Granite Circle Counsel for Respondents, Kard Corporation Toledo, OH 43617-1172 * and Racine Federated, Inc. (419) 843-2001 (419) 843-6665 - fax Stephen Paul Caniey # 0063460 Counsel for Petitioner State Solicitor Douglas Groch Counsel of Record Elise W. Porter # 0055548 Assistant Solicitor 30 East Broad Street, 17t" Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Counselfor Respondent, State of Ohio Kimberly A. Conklin # 0074726 Counsel of Record KERGER & ASSOCIATES 33 S. Michigan Street, Suite 100 Toledo, OH 43604 (419) 255-5990 (419) 255-5997 Counselfor Respondent, General Motors Corporation LwOrrces0= GNLLCN.Tq1UC5.SOISSONEAUIT & SCHPFFER CO., LP.0. THEJACKGALLON6UILOING 8516 GqANITECIRCLE TOLEDO,OH1043617-11*8 m David C. Vogel (MO # 45937) Patrick Fanning (MO # 47615) LAT14ROP & GAGC L.C. 2345 Grand Boulevaid, Suite 2800 Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2612 (816) 292-2000 (816) 292-2001 - fax of Counsel for Respondent, General Motors Corporation w, o.fw^ D^ ;AI.LON, TqKACg, 801390NEAULT SSCHqFFEHCO.,L.P.A THE JACK OALLON BUIIDINO 9518OHFIJREqRCLE TOLEDO, OHI04%iT-11R 11 e^m TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................ p. iii. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................... p. vi. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................... p. 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................ p. 1. Proposition of Law No. 1 p. 2. The statute of repose codified in R.C. 2305.10 denies injured Ohioans open access to the courts and the right to remedy for their injuries in violation of Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 2 p. 9. The statute of repose codified in RC. 2305.10 denies injured Ohioans due process of law contrary to the mandate of Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 3 p. 16. The statute of repose codified in R.C. 2305.10 is an unconstitutional taking of private property under Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 4 p. 19. The statute of repose codi£ed in R.C. 2305.10 denies equal protection under the law certain plaintiffs contrary to the mandate of Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 5 p. 22. R.C. 2305.10, as applied herein, retroactively extinguishes a substantive right in violation of Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Proposition of Law No. 6 p. 27. SB 80 violates Section 15, Article II of the Ohio Constitution which mandates that no bill shall have more than one subject and that bills with more than one subject mus.t be invalidated in toto. Proposition of Law No. 7 p. 36. The Workers' Compensation subrogation statutes violate Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution by denying injured workers who settle their third-party tort claims due process of ni law as a result of failing to provide a proceeding by which those injured workers who settle their third-party claims may overcome the statutory presumption of double recovery. Proposition of Law No. 8 p. 42, The Workers' Compensation subrogation statutes violate Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution by improperly taking private property where injured workers are compelled to disgorge money obtained as a result of settling a third-party tort claim based upon the statutes' de facto irrebuttable presumption of double recovery. Proposition of Law No. 9 p. 44. The Workers' Compensation subrogation statutes violate Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution in that in an action between the statutory subrogee and the claimant the party asserting the claim, the statutory subrogee, (i.e. the plaintiff in that action) is given a statutory presumption of recovery versus the defendant in that action. CONCLUSION ............................... ....... ........... ....................... p. 46. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................... APPENDICES Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 1. Ohio Western Division Certifying Questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio filed October 11, 2006 Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 2. Ohio Western Division Certifying Questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio filed November 27, 2006 Order of the Supreine Court of Ohio filed December 27, 2006 3. Petitioner's Complaint filed in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas June 2, 2006 Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution 5. Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution 6. Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution 7. Section 15, Article II of the Ohio Constitution 8. iv Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution 9. R.C. 2305.10 (2005) 10. R.C.2305.10 11. END OF VOLUME ONE Senate Bi1180 12. Legislative Service Conunission, SB 80, Final Analysis 13. R.C. 4123.93 14. R.C.4123.931 15. Letter of Bennet M. Miller dated February 13, 2007 16. v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Bane One Dayton v. Limbach, (1990) 50 Ohio St. 3d 163 ...................................p. 20. Beaele v. Walden, ( 1997) 78 Ohio St. 3d 59 ..................................................p. 31. Brennaman v. R.M.I. Comnany, (1994) 70 Ohio St. 3d 460 ................................pp. 5-7. Bowling v. Heil Co., (1987) 31 Ohio St. 3d 277 ..............................................p. 13. Caldwell v. Village of Carthage, (1892) 49 Ohio St. 334 .................. :................. p. 10. Cincinnati Bar Association v. Bailey, (2006) 110 Ohio St. 3d 223 .........................p. 10. City of Norwood v. Hornev, (2006) 110 Ohio St. 3d 353 ................................p. 18, 37. Commissioners v. Gates, (1910) 83 Ohio St. 19 ...............................................p. 17. Dumi v. Blumstein, (1972) 405 U.S. 330 .......................................................p. 11. Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., (1987) 33 Ohio St. 3d 54 ............................pp. 3, 5. Gonzales v. 0 Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, (2006) 546 U.S. 418 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .....p. 11. Gregory v. Flowers, (1972) 32 Ohio St. 2d 48 .........................................pp. 22, 25. Hardy v. Vermeulen, (1987) 32 Ohio St. 3d 45 .....................................pp. 3, 4, 6, 26. Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co., (2001) 92 Ohio St. 3d 115.........pp. 17, 36, 38, 39, 42-45. In re Nowak, (2004) 104 Ohio St. 3d 466 ........................................pp. 27, 28, 32-34. Ledex v. Heatbath Corp., (1984) 10 Ohio St. 3d 126 ........................................p. 19. Kintz v. Harrieer, (1919) 99 Ohio St. 240 .....................................................p. 33. Marbury v. Madison, (1803) 5 U.S. 137 ........................................................p. 33. Menefee v. Queen City Metro, (1990) 49 Ohio St. 3d 27 ....................................p. 44. Menifee V. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., (1984) 15 Ohio St. 3d 75 ........................p. 13. vi Modzelewski v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., (2004) 102 Ohio State 3d 192 .........................................................pp. 17, 36, 43. Mominee v. Scherbarth et al., (1986) 28 Ohio St. 3d 270 .....................pp. 3, 4, 7, 11, 25. Park Corp. v. City of Brook Park, (2004) 102 Ohio St. 3d 166 .............................p. 20. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, (1973) 411 U.S. 1 ..............p. 11. Sikorski v. Link Electric & Safety Control Co., (8t" App. Dist. 1997) 117 Ohio App. 3d 822 ...................................................p. 14. Sorrell v. Thevenir, (1994) 69 Ohio St. 3d 415 ..................................................p. 9. Southward v. Jamison, (1902) 66 Ohio St. 290 .........................................pp. 10, 27. State ex rel. Dix v. Celeste, (1984) 11 Ohio St. 3d 141 ......................................p. 28. State ex rel. Hinkle v. Franklin County Board of Electors, (1991) 62 Ohio St. 3d 145 ........................................................................p. 32. State ex rel. HoldridF4e v. Industrial Conunission of Ohio, (1967) 11 Ohio St. 2d 175 ........................................................................p. 23. State ex rel. Kilbum v. Gurad, (1983) 5 Ohio St. 3d 21 .....................................p. 10. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, (1999) 86 Ohio St. 3d 451 .......:.......................................................pp. 6, 28, 30. State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Voinovich, (1994) 69 Ohio St. 3d 225 ..............pp. 31, 32. State ex rel. Teamsters Loca1377 v. Youn^ s town, (1977) 50 Ohio St. 2d 200............p. 8. State of Ohio v. Buckley et al., (1968) 16 Ohio St. 2d 128 ..................................p. 44. State of Ohio v. LaSalle, (2002) 96 Ohio St. 3d 178 .........................................p. 23. State of Ohio v. Thompson, (2002) 95 Ohio St. 3d 264 ................................pp.