Women of Influence Award 2013
Women of Influence Award 2013
Honoring: Lisa L. Patterson, Esq.
The Women of Influence Award honors women who have helped shape the success of their organization and have demonstrated leadership, professional achievement and continuous contribution in the workplace and community.
Lisa L. Patterson, Managing Partner, LL Patterson LLC
Dayton, Springboro and Troy Chambers of Commerce; Dayton Safety Council; Warren County, Dayton, American and Ohio State Bar Associations; Ohio Self-Insurer’s Association; Apex Community Church
Lisa would like to thank her family and friends who attended the Women of Influence Luncheon on October 9th.
See the attached video, article and photographs of this amazing achievement! Congratulations, Lisa!
Lisa Patterson Women of Influence video
Women of Influence Award 2013 Honorees
Lisa Patterson and Nancy Harbert
Congratulations Lisa!
Lead Magazine Honoree Videos
Lead Magazine Honoree Videos
Lisa and John Patterson
Laura Keller and Lisa Patterson
Lisa Patterson and Andrea Ostrowski
Vicki Yeazel, Lisa Patterson, Jenifer Lehman
Challenges Beyond the Courtroom by Ria Megnin Dayton B2B September 2013 issue:
Lisa Patterson was recently interviewed by the Dayton B2B for an article addressing the legal industry tackling transformation as the economy, technology and law prompt big change. Lisa Patterson’s Tips for Today’s Legal Industry: “Don’t rely so much on the bells and whistles. Nothing can replace standing in front of a jury, looking them in the eye, and explaining to them in a way that they can understand what you need them to know about the case.” See the attached complete article for more interesting tips and insights. Challenges Beyond the Courtroom by Ria Megnin
Lisa Patterson – Super Lawyer 2013!
Lisa Patterson has been selected as a “Super Lawyer” in workers’ compensation for 2013. Congratulations Lisa!
Can an employee still bring an intentional tort against my company?
The short answer is yes. Effective April 7, 2005, Ohio adopted a new Intentional Tort Reform Statute, R.C. 2745.01. In order to be successful, the plaintiff must prove that an employer acted with specific intent or deliberate intent to cause injury and that injury was substantially certain to occur. The “or” in the current statute replaced it’s predecessors “and.”
On March 24, 2010 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Kaminski v. Metal and Wire Prods. Co. 125 Oh St. 3d. 250, upholding the constitutionality of the statute. While the Supreme Court did not eliminate the common law cause of action, it did limit it. It was thought in the wake of the decision in Kaminski, that intentional tort law would only apply to the following scenarios and if satisfied would create a rebuttable presumption:
- Deliberate Removal of an equipment safety guard. R.C. 2745.01(C)
- Deliberate Misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance. R.C. 2745.01(C)
However, on June 20, 2012 the Supreme Court of Ohio has heard yet another challenge to the intentional tort statute. Claimant Houdek was injured when he was using a scissor lift to tag inventory. Houdek was crushed by a forklift operator traveling at the maximum speed as required by the employer. Houdek suffered the loss of his leg as a result of the injury. The Trial Court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment against Houdek.
The 8th District Court of Appeals reversed the decision abandoning the Supreme Court’s reasoning and holdings in both Kaminski and Stettler. In an interesting and tortured analysis, the 8th District Court found that “substantially certain” and “deliberate intent to injure” could not mean the same thing and therefore, were “scrivener’s errors.” The Court then extrapolated that intent to injure can be proven by what a “reasonable, prudent employer would believe.”
This attempt to undermine the legislative process will ultimately be determined by the Ohio Supreme Court. Should the Ohio Supreme Court adopt the findings of the 8th District Court of Appeals, the landscape of intentional torts as we have come to understand it will be forever changed.
Stay tuned for updates!
Compliance before Defense
State ex rel. Glunt Industries v. Indus.Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-215
Claimant, Hamrick was injured when a main breaker cabinet housing two separate breakers exploded. He was ordered by his supervisor to investigate the main breaker. He filed a VSSR alleging that the employer had violated Ohio Adm. Code 4123:1-5-23 which requires that “unless the electrical conductors or equipment to be worked on are isolated from all possible sources of voltage or are effectively grounded, the employer shall provide protective equipment approved for the voltage involved, such as rubber gloves with protectors, rubber sleeves, hot line tools, line house, line guards, insulator hoods, blankets and access boards.”
Glunt, the employer admitted that with the possible exception of safety gloves it had not provided Hamrick the safety equipment required. It claimed that the company policy prohibited an employee from working on the “equipment,” the main breaker cabinet.
The defense of unilateral negligence only applies when first the employer has satisfied the applicable safety requirement. VSSR defenses require significant investigation and preparation and while only a small percentage only make it to the hearing stage, it is imperative that you retain counsel to prepare your defense as early as possible.