Cristino v. Adm'r, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.

977 N.E.2d 742

Pietro CRISTINO, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Administrator, Ohio BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 12AP–60.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Sept. 27, 2012.

Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein; Plevin & Gallucci Co., L.P.A., and Frank Gallucci, III, Cleveland, for appellant.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Mark E. Mastrangelo, Randall W. Knutti, Columbus, and Emily M. Simmons, for appellee.

Cavitch, Familo & Durkin Co., LPA, Ronald D. Holman, II, Alexander E. Goetsch and Max E. Dehn, Cleveland, for appellee.

KLATT, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Pietro Cristino, appeals a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio in favor of defendant-appellee, the Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (“Bureau”). For the following reasons, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In 1993, the Bureau found that Cristino had a permanent total disability (“PTD”). As a result, R.C. 4123.58(A) entitled Cristino to receive a biweekly payment of $708 until his death. According to Cristino, several years after he began receiving PTD benefits, a Bureau representative called him at his home and offered to send him a lump-sum payment of $115,000 instead of the biweekly payments. Cristino recalls the representative telling him that the $115,000 lump-sum payment was a “good deal” and a “fair amount.” Cristino deposition, at 62–63. Cristino agreed to the lump-sum payment. On November 2, 1998, the Bureau issued Cristino a check for $115,000. Cristino cashed the check.

{¶ 3} On June 22, 2001, Cristino filed a class action complaint against the Bureau and the state of Ohio in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In his complaint, Cristino alleged that the defendants had improperly calculated the present value of his PTD claim and, therefore, he had not received the full actual value of his PTD benefits. Cristino asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of constitutional and statutory rights. Cristino sought several forms of relief, including full restitution of the difference between the amount the defendants represented was the present value of his PTD claim and the true present value.

{¶ 4} The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that Cristino sought money damages from the state and, consequently, the Court of Claims was the only court that possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over his case. Cristino responded that he sought reimbursement of money wrongfully withheld, which was an equitable remedy. Because equitable claims against the state may be maintained in a court of common pleas, Cristino argued that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas was the appropriate forum for his action. Ultimately, the trial court granted the defendants' motion. Cristino appealed the trial court's judgment to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed. Cristino v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 8th Dist. No. 80619, 2003-Ohio-766, 2003 WL 361283. Cristino then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. In a one-sentence decision, that court reversedthe appellate court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court on the authority of the recently decided case of Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74, 2004-Ohio-28, 801 N.E.2d 441.Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 97, 2004-Ohio-201, 802 N.E.2d 147.

{¶ 5} On remand, the defendants again moved to dismiss on the ground that the Court of Claims, not a court of common pleas, had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Cristino moved for class certification. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Cristino's motion for class certification. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed both decisions. Cristino v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 8th Dist. No. 87567, 2006-Ohio-5921, 2006 WL 3234022. The defendants appealed the jurisdictional issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Upon its second review of that issue, the court held that Cristino sought legal, not equitable, relief because he pleaded a claim for money due under a contract, not the restitution of funds to which he was statutorily entitled. Cristino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 118 Ohio St.3d 151, 2008-Ohio-2013, 886 N.E.2d 857, ¶ 12–14, 16. The Supreme Court of Ohio thus ruled that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Id. at ¶ 1.

{¶ 6} On November 10, 2008, Cristino filed the instant action in the Court of Claims. Cristino alleged that the Bureau misled him into accepting $115,000 as a lump-sum settlement of his PTD claim. Specifically, the complaint stated:

14. Unbeknownst to Cristino, the Bureau had actually discounted the present value of the claim by an additional thirty percent (30%) pursuant to an official policy established by the Administrator. In other words, the Bureau had calculated the present value of the claim based upon Cristino's statistical life expectancy and then further reduced the figure by thirty percent (30%).

15. The Bureau never disclosed the thirty percent (30%) discount to Cristino despite the fact he was statutorily entitled to the PTD payments for the rest of his life.

16. Additionally, the Bureau based these calculations upon unrealistic life expectancy tables that are more favorable to the government. These tables are inconsistent with more reliable data utilized by many other private entities and governmental agencies, including (but not limited to) the United States Department of Labor.

17. The Bureau never disclosed to Cristino that unreliable and outdated life expectancy tables were being utilized in the calculation of the present value of his PTD claim.

{¶ 7} Cristino asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of constitutional and statutory rights. In addition to money damages, Cristino also sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

{¶ 8} The Bureau moved to dismiss Cristino's complaint based on Civ.R. 12(B)(6).¹ The trial court granted the Bureau's motion in part and denied it in part. Although the trial court dismissed Cristino's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of constitutional and statutory rights, and injunctiverelief, it denied the motion as it related to Cristino's claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief.

{¶ 9} Shortly after the Bureau moved to dismiss, Cristino filed a motion requesting that the trial court reinstate the class certification order that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas had entered. The trial court never ruled on that motion.

{¶ 10} Once it had completed discovery, the Bureau moved for summary judgment on Cristino's claim for breach of contract. The trial court granted the Bureau's motion on the basis that the statute of limitations barred the breach-of-contract claim. The Bureau then moved, with leave, for judgment on the pleadings with regard to Cristino's claim for declaratory relief. The trial court also granted that motion. Because that decision disposed of the last remaining claim, the entry granting the Bureau's motion for judgment on the pleadings constituted a final, appealable order.

{¶ 11} Cristino now appeals, and he assigns the following errors:

[1.] THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BY DISMISSING THE CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FRAUD, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND INJUNCTION UPON THE PLEADINGS AND BY REFUSING TO RECONSIDER THE UNTENABLE RULINGS.

[2.] THE COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT–APPELLEE UPON THE CLAIM OF BREACH OF CONTRACT.

[3.] AFTER THE COURT OF CLAIMS LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE REMAINING THEORIES OF RELIEF, A FURTHER ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHEN A REMAND WAS NOT ORDERED TO THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

[4.] THE COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO PROMPTLY REINSTATE THE PRIOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER.

[5.] THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY IMPLICITLY OVERRULING PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT'S REMAINING MOTIONS.

{¶ 12} By his first assignment of error, Cristino argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment, and in entering judgment on the pleadings with regard to his claim for declaratory relief. We find that the trial court erred in its rulings on Cristino's claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. However, we find no error in the trial court's dismissal of Cristino's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

{¶ 13} Before beginning our analysis of Cristino's first assignment of error, we must clarify the extent of our review. The Bureau asserts that this court should overrule the first assignment of error because all the claims subsumed in it are time-barred. The trial court did not rely on the statute of limitations to rule in the Bureau's favor on any of the claims at issue. The trial court eschewed reliance on the statute-of-limitations defense for good reason. First, the Bureau did not raise that defense in its Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. In a footnote, the Bureau explicitly acknowledged that the complaint did not contain the dates necessary for the Bureau to craft an argument that Cristino asserted his claims after the statute of limitations had elapsed. Because “courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations outsidethe complaint to determine a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion,” the Bureau elected not to pursue the statute-of-limitations defense. State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 (1997). Now, however, the Bureau would have this court ignore the preceding rule of law and review the trial court's ruling on its Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion in light of evidence adduced in support of its motion for summary judgment. We refuse to do this.²

{¶ 14} Second, although...