holding that a plaintiff who was rendered a permanent C-4 quadriplegic due to the complete transection of his spinal cord had an employment potential and, therefore, it could not be found to a reasonable degree of certainty that he will receive social security benefits beyond 1998
How later courts described this case
- holding that a plaintiff who was rendered a permanent C-4 quadriplegic due to the complete transection of his spinal cord had an employment potential and, therefore, it could not be found to a reasonable degree of certainty that he will receive social security benefits beyond 1998
- holding that under R.C. 2744.05(B), a collateral Case No. 2013-00452JD -17- DECISION benefit “is deductible only to the extent that the loss for which it compensates is actually included in the jury’s award”
- holding that Social Security and Medicare benefits are the type of collateral source benefits contemplated by R.C. 2744.05(B)”
- approving a jury finding of damages “substantially below that recommended by plaintiffs expert”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in paragraphs one, two, three, five and six of the syllabus in this case. However, for the reasons stated in Chief Justice Moyer’s dissenting opinion in Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415 , 633 N.E.2d 504 , which I joined, I believe that R.C. 2744.05(B) is constitutional as literally read. The constitutionality of R.C. 2744.05(B) is further buttressed by the state’s important interest in preserving the financial *281 soundness of its political subdivisions. Under the unambiguous language of R.C. 2744.05(B), all collateral benefits received by a claimant should be “deducted from any award against a political subdivision,” not merely those benefits that are actually included in a jury’s award. Accordingly, I dissent to paragraph four of the syllabus.
Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.
Pfeifer, J. I concur in paragraph four of the syllabus and in judgment only. I would apply this court’s analysis in Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415 , 633 N.E.2d 504 , to this case and hold that R.C. 2744.05(B) is unconstitutional.