Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A broad release contained within a settlement of a violation of specific safety requirements ("VSSR") claim, signed by an injured employee represented by counsel at the time, barred a later civil action filed by the employee against the employer for spoliation of evidence, held an Ohio appellate court. Acknowledging that releases from future tortious activity were disfavored, the court noted that the workplace accident causing the employee's injury occurred some two years before the execution of the VSSR settlement. Accordingly, the employee had ample time to determine if there were any potential claims--such as spoliation--that he desired to exclude from the settlement. Where, as here, where the intent of the parties was stated in clear and unambiguous terms, the settlement agreement would be enforced.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Owens v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., 2020-Ohio-5156, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3999 (Nov. 3, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 132.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.