Exclusive Remedy in Ohio

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Ohio, when an employer complies with the Workers’ Compensation Act (i.e., pays into the system and maintains coverage), that employer is immune from lawsuits by employees for work-related injuries or occupational diseases. R.C. 4123.74.

This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee likely would be able to obtain far greater monetary damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.

The purpose of the provision is to give employers an incentive to obtain workers’ compensation coverage by granting them immunity from tort lawsuits. 

INTENTIONAL WRONG EXCEPTION

If an employer intentionally causes the injury, the exclusive remedy rule does not protect the employer from the injured worker’s tort claim.

To act intentionally, the employer must either:

1. Act with intent to injure; or 
2. Act with the belief that the injury is substantially certain to occur.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

This exception involves the situation where the employer occupies a separate role unrelated to employment. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. Ohio courts rarely apply this exception.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the employee may:

• File a claim with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation; and
• Also bring a civil action for damages.

“THIRD PARTY” LAWSUITS

Employees can still sue third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, negligent drivers, contractors) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury. 

RECENT CASES

Weitzel v. Bryson/Tucker Electric, LLC, No. L-24-1114 (Ohio Ct. App. 07/22/25)

A foreman told an electrician and a coworker to go up to a mezzanine level to assist two other employees. Once there, he fell through an unmarked hole and injured himself. He sued the company for negligence. The foreman’s “instruction to appellant to work in the mezzanine area without warning him of the uncovered, unmarked holes or instructing him to use fall protection put [the employee] into a dangerous situation, and it may have been reckless or violated safety regulations,” the court said. But there was no evidence that the employer specifically intended to harm him or removed safety equipment. The court ruled that workers’ compensation was the electrician’s exclusive remedy.

Penny v. Cottingham Retirement Cmty., No. 1:21-cv-562. (S.D. Ohio 08/22/24)

A dishwasher claimed he was intentionally injured due to unsanitary work conditions and sued his employer. Because workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for his claim against the defendants for "[u]nsanitary work conditions,” his claim was not plausible. The court dismissed it. “At best, Mr. Penny has pled an act of omission on the part of his employer—or the negligent breach of a duty of care—which is exactly the type of claim Ohio's worker's compensation laws are intended to capture.”

Long v. Keltanbw, Inc., 246 N.E.3d 635 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

 A floating assistant teacher at a daycare center heard a pop when she was bending over to lift an infant. She injured her back. She sued the center for negligent supervision and training. The court granted judgment to the employer based on the exclusive remedy provision.

Looking for information on exclusive remedy rules in your state? Look to Simply Research

Share This Article: