Cleveland Browns dealt loss in fight against three current, former players' worker’s compensation claims - cleveland.com

tederes.blogspot.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A panel of appeals court judges handed the Cleveland Browns a loss this week in a 2017 worker’s compensation case brought by three players.

Three judges with the 8th District Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the claims of current Browns offensive lineman Joel Bitonio, former offensive lineman Joe Greco and ex-linebacker Scott Solomon, over injuries that they suffered in the 2014 and 2015 seasons.

The Browns sought to bar the players' claims by arguing that the University Hospitals doctors who treated their injuries are not employees of the organization. The players also filed their claims more than two years after they suffered their injuries. The team argued that the case fell under an Ohio law that, at the time, barred injured workers from claiming worker’s compensation unless they filed claims within two years of their injury.

The Bureau of Worker’s Compensation, a commission that hears challenges to the bureau’s decisions, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge and, as of Thursday, three 8th District court judges all rejected those arguments.

Judge Anita Laster Mays wrote the panel’s opinion, which upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of the players before the case went to trial, said the doctors found the team physicians are “under the employ” of the Browns.

The team has the option to ask the entire 8th District bench to reconsider the panel’s decision or appeal the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.

A team spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stuart Garson, a Cleveland-based attorney who, along with two other lawyers in his firm, represented the players, praised the decision.

Bitonio, Greco and Solomon filed a total of six claims for injuries they suffered either during games or in practice. Court records do not indicate whether the players are seeking any money.

The Browns are a self-insured employer, and Ohio law places a two-year statute of limitations in injured employees can bring a worker’s compensation claim. The law also says the statute of limitation pauses, or “tolls,” when an employer pays for the employee’s medical care at the time of the injury, or a physician who is “under the employ” of the employer renders the medical care. In those cases, employees can file a claim passed the two-year mark.

The team and lawyers from Garson’s firm agreed that all three players suffered injuries while working for the Browns and received care from either Dr. James Voos, the head team physician, or Dr. Michael Salata, the associate orthopedic team physician, according to court records.

The Browns' lawyers used the team’s agreement with University Hospitals to argue that neither of the exceptions applies.

The team argued that under the agreement, the hospital did not pay for the medical care the players received because the hospital did not charge the team for any of the care, according to court records. Instead, the hospital provided the care in exchange for marketing rights for the Browns' name and logo. UH bills itself as “The Official Health Care Provider for the Cleveland Browns” on its website.

The Browns' also argued that the physicians are employees of University Hospitals and not the Browns. The hospital pays the doctors' salaries, and the team has no directive over the doctors' treatment prescriptions, the team argued.

Garson’s firm argued on behalf of the players that, even if University Hospitals does not bill the team for the care, the ability to use the team’s name in marketing constitutes payment on behalf of the Browns in exchange for the players' treatment.

He also argued that the Browns controlled when and where the doctors worked, and it required the doctors to share information about players' diagnoses and treatment with the team. This constituted being “under the employ” of the Browns.

Garson said, had the Browns prevailed, then players may have lost the ability to have the teams cover the cost of medical care and procedures needed after their careers were over. He also said self-insured companies in other industries may have sought to set up similar payment arrangements to avoid the cost of future medical care.

“Fortunately the Court of Appeals agreed with us,” he said.