On Friday, June 3, 2022, a Ross County jury awarded Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox client John R. Gilliland the right to participate in the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fund (BWC) for an injury that occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment.  

The jury rejected the employer’s argument that the injury did not occur while Mr. Gilliland was on the job. The case was tried over three days and the jury’s verdict was returned in less than two hours. 

The case will now be returned to the BWC where Mr. Gilliland will be awarded benefits for the fractured neck he suffered in the work-related accident.  The case was referred to Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox by the law firm of Knisley Brush of Chillicothe, Ohio.

The case was tried by Ohio workers’ compensation trial attorneys Sandy Meizlish and Brian Noethlich.  It was the first trial for the firm since the onset of the pandemic.  

How Our Ohio Workers’ Compensation Trial Attorneys Fight for You

We know that this victory for hard-working Ohioans is just the first of many. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused interruptions and difficulties in many parts of our lives, including litigation and the court system. So while this win is just one of several to come, it is an important landmark for our trial workers’ compensation attorneys in Ohio.

As an accomplished Ohio workers’ compensation law firm, we continue to work tirelessly to defend your rights as a worker in Ohio. Mr. Gilliland’s case was one where an employer wanted to deny him access to the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fund to which he was entitled and had worked for. We didn’t let that happen.

The level of care, detail, and preparation that we put into this case, as well as the passion we put into fighting for our client, propelled us to victory. Mr. Gilliland was in the right, and we did everything in our power to make sure the jury saw that.

This is the type of passionate work, care, and dedication you can, and should, always expect from the trial workers’ compensation lawyers at Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox all over the state of Ohio. We are ready to take your case all the way to trial and win if that’s what’s necessary.

We Are More Than Just Ohio Workers’ Compensation Attorneys

Today, the spotlight is on our trial workers’ compensation attorneys for their big win on behalf of a hard-working and deserving Ohioan. But Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox is also a versatile Ohio law firm with employment attorneys working on behalf of Ohio workers in areas such as wrongful termination, discrimination, and unpaid wages and hours.

Even if you have not been injured or wronged by an employer, we are also skilled Columbus personal injury lawyers and auto accident lawyers ready to fight on your behalf to help you recover after an injury, accident, or employment issue wrongfully caused by another.

June’s trial win reaffirms our commitment to fighting for Ohioans to enforce their rights under the law. If you’ve suffered an injury on or off the job, physical, emotional, or financial, contact Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox today and let us see how we can go to work for you!

How Does Product Liability Work in Ohio?

Injuries and accidents happen all the time. Injuries caused by a defective product may qualify you for a product liability lawsuit.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) organizes its accident, injury and fatality statistics into the following categories.

• Amusement Rides
• All-terrain vehicles and recreational off-road vehicles
• Carbon monoxide
• Chemicals
• Electrical
• Electrocutions
• Fire
• Fuel, lighters and fireworks
• Furniture and decor
• Home appliances, maintenance and construction
• Kitchen and dining
• Nonpool submersions
• Nursery products
• Older adults
• Other children’s products
• Other furniture and décor
• Other sports
• Pediatric poisonings
• Playgrounds
• Pool and spas
• Portable generators
• Portable generators and engine-driven tools
• Public facilities and products
• Sports and recreation
• Tipovers
• Toys
• Toys and children’s products

As extensive as that list is, it omits cars, trucks, automotive equipment, and a whole range of other items and devices that people regularly use in their homes and at work.

The categories of consumer products that are monitored for the harms they cause exist, first, to identify dangerous and defective items. That information is then used to either make products safer or to remove them from the market.

Second, the CPSC’s list reflects the bedrock legal principle that companies and individuals who make and sell products have enforceable duties to ensure their products will not injure or kill people. Breaching those duties creates product liability.

How Does Ohio Define Product Liability?

Section 2307.71 of the Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) states that manufacturers or suppliers face product liability when one of the items they make or sell causes a death or injury because the item

• Was poorly designed, formulated, constructed, assembled, repaired, or tested;
• Was deceptively or fraudulently marketed;
• Lacked sufficient warnings;
• Lacked adequate instructions for safe use; or
• Failed “to conform to any relevant representation or warranty.”

This section of the O.R.C. also defines a manufacturer as “a person [or company] engaged in a business to design, formulate, produce, create, make, construct, assemble, or rebuild a product or a component of a product.” Under the law, a supplier is either “a person [or company] that, in the course of a business conducted for the purpose, sells, distributes, leases, prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise participates in the placing of a product in the stream of commerce” or “a person [or company] that, in the course of a business conducted for the purpose, installs, repairs, or maintains any aspect of a product.”

Grounds for filing a product liability lawsuit exist when the use of a defective or dangerous product directly causes death, physical injury or emotional distress to a person. The use can be one time for over an extended period. Property damage from a defective or dangerous product can also merit a lawsuit.

How Long Do I Have to File a Product Liability Claim in Ohio?

Generally, section 2305.01 of the O.R.C. sets the statute of limitations for a product liability claim at two years from the date on which a personal injury or wrongful death occurred. The law further specifies that injuries or deaths that happen more than 10 years after a product was purchased will not support claims for compensation.

A major exception to the statute of limitation involves injuries or death due to an exposure or ingestion of medications or hazardous and toxic chemicals, or the implantation or use of a medical device. In those situations, the deadline for filing a product liability lawsuit extends from the date on which a diagnosis of the harm was made.

What Types of Damages Can Be Claimed in a Product Liability Lawsuit?

Ohio’s product liability laws allow victims to demand compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are monetary settlements or jury awards that cover the costs of the victim’s past and future medical treatments, replace lost wages and future earnings, and compensate the victim for physical and emotional pain and suffering.

Punitive damages are noncriminal fines assessed to penalize a negligent or reckless manufacturer or supplier. These are also called exemplary damages because the financial penalty is meant to serve as an example of what could happen to another person or company that acts in a similarly negligent or reckless way. Only a jury can award punitive damages, but a product liability claim can be settled without going to trial.

On a final note, when a dangerous or defective product kills a user, Ohio law permits the victim’s spouse, adult child, next of kin, relative, or legal executor to file a wrongful death claim on the deceased victim’s behalf.

Paraquat linked to increased rates of Parkinson’s disease

Paraquat dichloride (a.k.a. “paraquat”) is the most common brand of herbicide in the United States. Also referred to as Gramoxone, Paraquat is a chemical pesticide used to kill leaves that it comes into contact with. Applied as a spray, it has been used to clear fields before planting in United States commercial farming and agriculture since the 1960s. Applicators typically spray it on commercial crops such as corn, soy and cotton.

Paraquat is extremely toxic and harmful to humans. Ingesting as little as one sip of paraquat can kill you. Manufacturers mix paraquat with blue dye so that it is not confused with a food product. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) classifies paraquat as a restricted use pesticide, meaning only certified pesticide applicators can use it. To be a certified pesticide applicator, a person must take an EPA-approved training and examination, and continue to be regulated by the state where they acquire and apply paraquat. Once certified, the individual becomes a “commercially licensed applicator.” Unfortunately, commercially licensed applicators of paraquat are “the most at risk for exposure.”[1]

Exposure can incur by ingestion, inhalation, and skin exposure. Safety measures exist to prevent accidental ingestion, direct inhalation, and/or exposure while mixing and applying. Unfortunately, the commercially licensed applicators and those who work with them (including groundskeepers, farmers, growers, pickers, and other agricultural workers), are exposed to paraquat residue on their clothes, skin, and hair. They are also exposed to mist drift when the wind changes while they are applying the pesticide.

Multiple scientific studies have linked repeated exposure to paraquat in low doses to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s disease effects the human neurological system. Individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease often experience reduced control over their fine motor skills.  As a result, tremors, loss of balance and coordination, slower movement, and rigid limbs are all associated with this devastating disease. Unlike other neurodegenerative diseases, the genetic cause of Parkinson’s is not completely clear and thought to be low. However, the link between Parkinson’s and exposure to pesticides such as Paraquat has been demonstrated through numerous scientific studies. “People who used [paraquat] developed Parkinson’s disease approximately 2.5 times more often than non-users.”[2]

Commercially licensed applicators and other agricultural workers exposed to smaller amounts of the chemical over a long period may not manifest symptoms for years.  Many commercially licensed applicators and other agricultural workers who have been exposed to Paraquat and later developed Parkinson’s disease are filing lawsuits against the manufacturers. If you or a loved one was exposed to paraquat and developed Parkinson’s disease, you should seek legal advice on your rights.

Believe you were affected? Contact our Paraquat attorneys.

– Bob DeRose

[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/paraquat/basics/facts.asp

[2] Robin Arnette, NIH study finds two pesticides associated with Parkinson’s disease., National Institute of Health, February 11, 2021

Stop the medical errors, and you stop the lawsuits

Updates on Temperature Checks and the FLSA

In mid-2020, the team at Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP reported on the new workplace normal. Namely, we analyzed how mandated temperature checks could lead employers into hot water. Between workplace ethics and potential FLSA violations, the institution of regular temperature checks and other COVID-19 conscious practices led to these concerns. Now, in early 2021, employees across the United States are finding themselves the victims of such FLSA violations.

In a recent California federal court filing, a tennis company came under fire when employees reported underpayment of wages. This underpayment seems to be a direct result of newly instituted COVID-19 safety measures, such as temperature checks. The company expected employees to undergo such measures prior to clocking in. The FLSA protects workers from their employers expecting work be done off the clock, including meetings, pre-shift duties, and post-shift duties. Temperature checks fall under this umbrella, as both statewide mandates and employer-instituted regulations require can require employees undergo this action.

This is not the first collective and class action suit to be filed in relation to unpaid wages and COVID-19 precautions. Apple, Walmart, and Converse have all been hit with similar filings. With large companies being hit left and right with actions regarding FLSA violations and COVID-19 safety checks, small company should take note.

Some Information on the FSLA:

Employees are protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, also known as the FLSA. The FLSA ensures that employers are held accountable under federal law for proper payment of employees. In the case of mandated temperature checks, employees should anticipate payment for undergoing such an event before the technical start of their shift. As a required workplace action, employees should be compensated for their time.

If you are concerned that your workplace has not been properly paying you, an attorney may be able to help. Contact attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP today to set up a free consultation.

Uber Eats and the Pandemic Economy

Armin Samii, a computer programmer who has been working part-time for Uber Eats, claims to have found evidence that the food delivery service has been routinely underpaying its drivers. Uber Eats’ policy is to pay its delivery works on a per-mile basis. This is the standard within the food delivery industry. However, according to a Google Chrome extension, “UberCheats,” built by Samii, Uber has allegedly been regularly shorting its delivery workers on 25-30% of trips, according to Salon.

Samii created this extension after an experience he had with Uber in which the food delivery company admitted to him that, because of a bug on Uber Eats’ end, he was not properly paid for his full delivery. Samii collected data from around 160 Uber Eats drivers through his extension. Through this, he estimates that Uber has underpaid workers on approximately 21% of trips, per Business Insider. To this end, Samii’s data shows that Uber Eats’ delivery drivers are being underpaid by an average of 1.3 miles on those approximately 21% of trips. This finding of routine underpayment by Uber, as well as Uber’s own admission that a bug does, in fact, exist within the delivery tracking method, is potentially disconcerting to Uber eats’ delivery drivers across the country.

What Changed?

Amid a global pandemic, the need for has become apparent to many. The potential that such automation is shorting employee wages on a regular basis is worrisome and harmful as our economy continues to grow and change. In recent months, more people have begun to rely on food delivery services to avoid  exposure to illness, increasing the demand for delivery drivers in the food service industry. Competition has increase as the food delivery industry has become more crowded and ever more necessary. No worker, including the gig workers we have become reliant on during the pandemic, should fear that their employer is intentionally paying them less than they are owed. The increased competition and demand for delivery service is an additional stressor, and improper payment for services is detrimental to the livelihood of this workforce.

-Jacob Mikalov for Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP

New FLSA Rules Rolling Out This Summer

Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released two new rules relating to overtime calculations and employee compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Change to the Calculation of Overtime for Salaried Workers

Under the FLSA, there are two ways to determine overtime calculations, the “time and a half” method and the “fluctuating workweek” (FWW) method. The latter method is used when an employee receives a fixed salary for working fluctuating hours rather working on an hourly basis. FWW calculates a salaried employee’s overtime by computing the employee’s regular rate of pay each week based on the employee’s hours worked for that week. The new DOL regulations regarding DWW determine that all bonuses, premium payments, and other pay (such as commissions, hazard pay, or nighttime differentials) are included in the calculation of the FWW employee’s regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating overtime.

This change may mean that salaried employees will see an increase in their overtime pay. However, it may also potentially hurt salaried employees because employers may choose to reduce an employee’s fixed weekly salary and shift considerable portions of an employee’s to bonuses and other forms of payment, all while the employees are averaging the same number of hours throughout the year.

Change to the Compensation of Commissioned Retail and Service Employees

Under the FLSA, commissioned employees working in a retail or service establishment may be exempt from receiving overtime pay. An employee falls within this exemption if they work for a “retail or service establishment,” if their regular rate of pay is in excess of one and one-half times the minimum wage, and if more than half of their compensation was derived from commissions earned from the sale of goods or services.

The most difficult part in determining if an employee fell within this exemption was determining if an employee was a ‘retail’ employee as the FLSA does not define what qualifies as a “retail or service establishment.”  In an attempt clarify if an individual worked in a retail establishment, the Wage & Hour Division of the DOL issued non-exhaustive lists of establishments that did and did not qualify as ‘retail’ under the FLSA.  However, because these lists were often vague, confusing and contradictory they were removed by the DOL. This update to regulation is effective on May 19th and will call for businesses to reevaluate whether they are considered ‘retail’ without the lists for guidance. This may lead to many businesses that formerly viewed themselves as ineligible for the exemption to begin implementing it on their commissioned employees.

Again, this change has the potential to both help and hurt employees depending on how their employers choose to implement the updates. In the worst cases, employees that long considered themselves to be safely outside of the “retail or service” work designation may begin to be considered within it according to their employer and lose the overtime pay they relied upon.

Overall, these updates could be simplifying and beneficial to employees in their shift to a more flexible, COVID-attuned work schedule. If you still have questions about how you may be impacted by these rules, a Wage & Hour attorney can help.

– Audrey Bidwell