Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

May 25, 2006

Got appointed to represent a defendant in a car theft case, so I went over to the jail today to interview him.  We went through the preliminaries, and then I asked him to tell me what happened.  "Well," he says, "I'd gotten out of prison earlier that day..."  That'll look good on the "Defendant's Version" section of the presentence report.

On to the law.

These boots weren't made for walking...   An employee is required by his company to wear heavy-duty workboots on the job, and although the employee decides which boot to purchase, the company has to approve the choice. The employee then winds up with an ulcerated blister on his foot because the boot proves defective. Is this covered by workers comp?

No, according to Anderson v. Sherwood Food Distributors. Judge Corrigan's majority opinion holds that while the injury occurred in the course of Anderson's employment, it didn't occur within the scope of his employment: "his employment did not cause the blister - his defective boot did." The court distinguishes a 1930 case in which the employee had died - yes, died - from a blister caused by walking over rough ground at a construction site; in this case, the court holds, "nothing particular to the Sherwood workplace contributed to the injury." Judge Blackmon's dissent argues that the what the court is actually doing is applying the "special hazards rule," by holding that in order to be compensable, the injury must arise from some facet of employment that the general public is not exposed to, and that the special hazards rule has no application where the injury actually occurs on the employer's premises.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States
  • June 27, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A worrisome decision on expert funding, and, mirabile dictu, a court's dismissal of a case for a discovery violation is upheld