| News | Announcements |
July 17, 2011
Jeff Patter Conducts Training for Columbus Speech & Hearing Center
July 7, 2011
Campbell Hornbeck Volunteer Day at Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
June 2011
Jeff Patter joins Columbus Friends of E-Discovery
May 19th, 2011
Children's Hunger Alliance
April 29, 2011
Furniture Bank of Ohio Fundraiser
Jeff Patter Conducts Training for Columbus Speech & Hearing Center
July 7, 2011
Campbell Hornbeck Volunteer Day at Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
June 2011
Jeff Patter joins Columbus Friends of E-Discovery
May 19th, 2011
Children's Hunger Alliance
April 29, 2011
Furniture Bank of Ohio Fundraiser
| News | Announcements |
August 26th, 2010
Campbell Hornbeck to host "Friends of the Firm"
August 19th, 2010
David Hornbeck elected to Clerk of Session for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
August 14th, 2010
Alan Veatch coordinates fundraiser for the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
August 2010
Alicia Shaw elected as Secretary of the Worthington Educational Foundation
July 2010
David Hornbeck to compete in the National Senior Olympics
Campbell Hornbeck to host "Friends of the Firm"
August 19th, 2010
David Hornbeck elected to Clerk of Session for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
August 14th, 2010
Alan Veatch coordinates fundraiser for the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
August 2010
Alicia Shaw elected as Secretary of the Worthington Educational Foundation
July 2010
David Hornbeck to compete in the National Senior Olympics
July 17, 2011
Jeff Patter Conducts Training for Columbus Speech & Hearing Center
On July 17, 2011, Jeff Patter conducted employment law training for the management and staff of the Columbus Speech & Hearing Center regarding the pre-employment process, focusing on the employment application, interviewing and hiring decisions. The Center is a non-profit agency serving nearly 10,000 people across Ohio with audiology and hearing aid services, speech-language and occupational therapy, and the Center's Comprehensive Program for the Deaf.
Jeff Patter Conducts Training for Columbus Speech & Hearing Center
On July 17, 2011, Jeff Patter conducted employment law training for the management and staff of the Columbus Speech & Hearing Center regarding the pre-employment process, focusing on the employment application, interviewing and hiring decisions. The Center is a non-profit agency serving nearly 10,000 people across Ohio with audiology and hearing aid services, speech-language and occupational therapy, and the Center's Comprehensive Program for the Deaf.
July 7, 2011
Campbell Hornbeck Volunteer Day at Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
On July 7, 2011, the entire firm took the afternoon to volunteer at the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio to assist the Furniture Bank's mission to provide free furniture to Central Ohio families in need. Campbell Hornbeck attorneys, staff and families built and painted furniture and assisted in the warehouse over the course of the afternoon. The firm strongly encourages others to take advantage of volunteer opportunities with the Furniture Bank, whose goal it is to triple in size in order to serve the estimated 10,000 to 12,000 families in Central Ohio that struggle to furnish their homes.
Campbell Hornbeck Volunteer Day at Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
On July 7, 2011, the entire firm took the afternoon to volunteer at the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio to assist the Furniture Bank's mission to provide free furniture to Central Ohio families in need. Campbell Hornbeck attorneys, staff and families built and painted furniture and assisted in the warehouse over the course of the afternoon. The firm strongly encourages others to take advantage of volunteer opportunities with the Furniture Bank, whose goal it is to triple in size in order to serve the estimated 10,000 to 12,000 families in Central Ohio that struggle to furnish their homes.
June 2011
Jeff Patter joins Columbus Friends of E-Discovery
Jeff Patter has joined the Columbus Friends of E-Discovery, an information- sharing group that provides a forum for exchanging ideas and experiences regarding electronic discovery. The group includes corporate counsel, plaintiffs counsel, outside defense counsel and judges. Friends of E-Discovery groups have been previously launched by the group's founder in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.
Jeff Patter joins Columbus Friends of E-Discovery
Jeff Patter has joined the Columbus Friends of E-Discovery, an information- sharing group that provides a forum for exchanging ideas and experiences regarding electronic discovery. The group includes corporate counsel, plaintiffs counsel, outside defense counsel and judges. Friends of E-Discovery groups have been previously launched by the group's founder in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.
May 19th, 2011
Children's Hunger Alliance
The 9th annual Taste to Remember event was held May 19 to support the Children's Hunger Alliance and the American Culinary Federation - Columbus Chapter. Misty Aldrich serves on the Central Ohio Regional Board of the Children's Hunger Alliance. The enjoyable evening of food and wine raised over $45,000 to support hunger and obesity-prevention programs throughout Ohio.
Children's Hunger Alliance
The 9th annual Taste to Remember event was held May 19 to support the Children's Hunger Alliance and the American Culinary Federation - Columbus Chapter. Misty Aldrich serves on the Central Ohio Regional Board of the Children's Hunger Alliance. The enjoyable evening of food and wine raised over $45,000 to support hunger and obesity-prevention programs throughout Ohio.
April 29th, 2011
Furniture Bank of Ohio Fundraiser
The Furniture Bank of Central Ohio, of which Alan Veatch has been a member of the Board of Trustees for over 6 years, and which is the second largest free furniture bank in the U.S., recently held its major annual fundraising event. Alan is delighted to announce that even in this difficult economic environment, the event shattered its previous successes, raising over One Million dollars to help continue and expand its mission.
Furniture Bank of Ohio Fundraiser
The Furniture Bank of Central Ohio, of which Alan Veatch has been a member of the Board of Trustees for over 6 years, and which is the second largest free furniture bank in the U.S., recently held its major annual fundraising event. Alan is delighted to announce that even in this difficult economic environment, the event shattered its previous successes, raising over One Million dollars to help continue and expand its mission.
August 26th, 2010
Campbell Hornbeck to host "Friends of the Firm"
Campbell Hornbeck is hosting a "Friends of the Firm" reception in appreciation of its clients, referral sources, colleagues and everyone who has contributed to the Firm's success over the past three decades. Guests will enjoy food and libations on the firm's outside deck that overlooks the Olentangy River and will hopefully spot the bald eagle that nests nearby. For more information, please call 614.846.2000.
Campbell Hornbeck to host "Friends of the Firm"
Campbell Hornbeck is hosting a "Friends of the Firm" reception in appreciation of its clients, referral sources, colleagues and everyone who has contributed to the Firm's success over the past three decades. Guests will enjoy food and libations on the firm's outside deck that overlooks the Olentangy River and will hopefully spot the bald eagle that nests nearby. For more information, please call 614.846.2000.
August 19th, 2010
David Hornbeck elected to Clerk of Session for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Dave Hornbeck is a long time member of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church and has served as a member of its Session, as well as President of the corporation and legal counsel. The church began as a mission, a new church development, of the Presbytery of Columbus (now Presbytery of Scioto Valley) in October 1962, and was formally organized as a self-governing congregation on March 10, 1963.
David Hornbeck elected to Clerk of Session for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Dave Hornbeck is a long time member of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church and has served as a member of its Session, as well as President of the corporation and legal counsel. The church began as a mission, a new church development, of the Presbytery of Columbus (now Presbytery of Scioto Valley) in October 1962, and was formally organized as a self-governing congregation on March 10, 1963.
August 14th, 2010
Alan Veatch coordinates fundraiser for the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
On August 14, 2010, the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio hosted a furniture auction that raised over $600,000. This was due in part to the efforts of Alan Veatch who, for the past two years, has served as the Chair of the Development Committee. During his tenure as Chair, donations have increased by ten percent. The Furniture Bank of Central Ohio (formerly known as "Materials Assistance Program" or "MAP") is a non-profit organization that "turns empty houses into homes," by giving donated furniture to families and individuals struggling financially to furnish their own homes. For more information, go to www.furniturebankcoh.org
Alan Veatch coordinates fundraiser for the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio
On August 14, 2010, the Furniture Bank of Central Ohio hosted a furniture auction that raised over $600,000. This was due in part to the efforts of Alan Veatch who, for the past two years, has served as the Chair of the Development Committee. During his tenure as Chair, donations have increased by ten percent. The Furniture Bank of Central Ohio (formerly known as "Materials Assistance Program" or "MAP") is a non-profit organization that "turns empty houses into homes," by giving donated furniture to families and individuals struggling financially to furnish their own homes. For more information, go to www.furniturebankcoh.org
August 2010
Alicia Shaw elected as Secretary of the Worthington Educational Foundation
The Worthington Educational Foundation funds projects which enrich learning experiences for the students of Worthington Public Schools. Projects are funded through a grant review process whereby teachers as well as support staff members submit proposals to fund innovative projects and programs that affect and benefit students. For more information, go to www.worthedfoundation.org
Alicia Shaw elected as Secretary of the Worthington Educational Foundation
The Worthington Educational Foundation funds projects which enrich learning experiences for the students of Worthington Public Schools. Projects are funded through a grant review process whereby teachers as well as support staff members submit proposals to fund innovative projects and programs that affect and benefit students. For more information, go to www.worthedfoundation.org
July 2010
David Hornbeck to compete in the National Senior Olympics
David Hornbeck and his tennis partner, Mike Hardesty, won the Ohio Senior Olympics Men's Doubles Championship and will advance to the National Senior Olympics next year in Houston, Texas. The National Senior Games Association, formerly known as the U.S. National Senior Sports Organization, is responsible for the bi-annual National Senior Games. At the most recent national competition, held in Palo Alto California in 2009, over 10,000 athletes ranging in age from 50 to 100 competed in 18 sporting events. For more information, go to www.ohioseniorolympics.org or www.nationalseniorgames.com
David Hornbeck to compete in the National Senior Olympics
David Hornbeck and his tennis partner, Mike Hardesty, won the Ohio Senior Olympics Men's Doubles Championship and will advance to the National Senior Olympics next year in Houston, Texas. The National Senior Games Association, formerly known as the U.S. National Senior Sports Organization, is responsible for the bi-annual National Senior Games. At the most recent national competition, held in Palo Alto California in 2009, over 10,000 athletes ranging in age from 50 to 100 competed in 18 sporting events. For more information, go to www.ohioseniorolympics.org or www.nationalseniorgames.com
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment -- ("HIRE") Act
Effective March 18, 2010, private taxable businesses, and tax-exempt organizations can take advantage of certain federal tax credits made available to encourage hiring new employees. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act ("HIRE") is designed to provide specific tax relief to businesses that hire new employees, and retain those employees for a certain period of time. There are other components to HIRE that allow certain businesses additional tax relief, however such relief is not related to hiring employees.
The first tax relief opportunity offered to employers is a payroll tax exemption. Under HIRE, a qualified employer that hires a worker who has not worked more than forty (40) hours in the sixty (60) day period immediately prior their first day of employment, is exempt from the employer's 6.2% share of social security taxes to be paid on behalf of the employee. The employee must be hired between February 3, 2010 and December 31, 2010, in order for the employer to take the exemption, and the employer cannot take both the HIRE tax exemption and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit for the same employee. The new employee must also sign an affidavit (IRS Form W-11) stating their basis for exemption, which is to be kept in the employer's records. In addition, the new employee cannot be a family member of the employer, and in situations where the new employee is hired into a previously existing job, the person holding the position prior must have voluntarily resigned or been dismissed for cause. For the purposes of HIRE, an employee who is downsized is considered to be dismissed for cause. The tax exemption must be claimed on the employer's quarterly tax filings, and applies to wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010. There is no minimum number of hours per week that the employee must work for the employer in order to qualify. All other payments owed by the employer on behalf of the employee must be paid as usual.
The second tax relief opportunity made available by HIRE, is a $1,000.00 federal tax credit for employers that retain any new employees who qualify for the payroll tax exemption for at least fifty-two (52) weeks. The tax credit will be available as long as the employee's wages do not decrease significantly in the second half of the 52 week period. This tax credit must be claimed on the employer's 2011 income tax return, and can only be claimed after the 52 week threshold is reached. The available credit is the lesser of $1,000.00 or 6.2% of the employee's wages. This tax relief, however, is most likely not available to tax-exempt non-profit entities with employees.
Please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com or (614) 846-2000 for specific information regarding the HIRE Act and how it may apply to you or your business.
Effective March 18, 2010, private taxable businesses, and tax-exempt organizations can take advantage of certain federal tax credits made available to encourage hiring new employees. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act ("HIRE") is designed to provide specific tax relief to businesses that hire new employees, and retain those employees for a certain period of time. There are other components to HIRE that allow certain businesses additional tax relief, however such relief is not related to hiring employees.
The first tax relief opportunity offered to employers is a payroll tax exemption. Under HIRE, a qualified employer that hires a worker who has not worked more than forty (40) hours in the sixty (60) day period immediately prior their first day of employment, is exempt from the employer's 6.2% share of social security taxes to be paid on behalf of the employee. The employee must be hired between February 3, 2010 and December 31, 2010, in order for the employer to take the exemption, and the employer cannot take both the HIRE tax exemption and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit for the same employee. The new employee must also sign an affidavit (IRS Form W-11) stating their basis for exemption, which is to be kept in the employer's records. In addition, the new employee cannot be a family member of the employer, and in situations where the new employee is hired into a previously existing job, the person holding the position prior must have voluntarily resigned or been dismissed for cause. For the purposes of HIRE, an employee who is downsized is considered to be dismissed for cause. The tax exemption must be claimed on the employer's quarterly tax filings, and applies to wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010. There is no minimum number of hours per week that the employee must work for the employer in order to qualify. All other payments owed by the employer on behalf of the employee must be paid as usual.
The second tax relief opportunity made available by HIRE, is a $1,000.00 federal tax credit for employers that retain any new employees who qualify for the payroll tax exemption for at least fifty-two (52) weeks. The tax credit will be available as long as the employee's wages do not decrease significantly in the second half of the 52 week period. This tax credit must be claimed on the employer's 2011 income tax return, and can only be claimed after the 52 week threshold is reached. The available credit is the lesser of $1,000.00 or 6.2% of the employee's wages. This tax relief, however, is most likely not available to tax-exempt non-profit entities with employees.
Please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com or (614) 846-2000 for specific information regarding the HIRE Act and how it may apply to you or your business.
Retail Gift Card Laws
Effective August 2006, Ohio law requires a "gift card" be sold with an expiration date of not less than two years after its date of issue. A "gift card" is defined as a "certificate...or other medium issued by a merchant that evidences the giving of consideration in exchange for the right to redeem the certificate...for goods, services, credit or money of at least equal value[.]" It does not include a prepaid calling card. In addition to the two year minimum expiration period, no service fees or charges of any kind can be made against the purchased gift card during that time. This includes, but is not limited to, dormancy fees, latency fees and administrative fees that operate to reduce the amount for which the holder of the gift card may redeem the gift card.
There are a number of exceptions to the Ohio law. It does not apply to gifts cards distributed as part of a rewards program or promotional program without money or anything of value being given by the consumer for the card. It also does not apply to gift cards given by employers to employees for use at the employer's business establishment, or to gift cards that are sold in volume to employers or nonprofit and charitable organizations below face value for fundraising purposes, provided that the card expires no more than thirty days from the date of sale. There are additional exemptions provided for in Ohio law, so please consult one of our attorneys regarding a specific situation of concern.
Only recently did the federal government also become involved in regulating retail gift cards. Effective August 22, 2010, the Credit CARD Act provisions regarding retail gift cards will prohibit gift cards issued after that date from expiring for at least five years. Effectively, this means that on August 22, 2010, any gift card issued in Ohio cannot contain an expiration date of less than five years. In this situation, the less protective state laws will be superseded by the more protective federal law. In addition, if the card expires with unspent money remaining, the card holder can request a replacement card in the remaining unspent balance. Federal law will also require all expiration dates and fees of any kind to be clearly disclosed on the card and/or its packaging. The federal law will also prohibit a retailer from charging any fees against the amount of the gift card unless the card has been inactive for at least one year, and then only one fee can be charged per month. Regarding fees that can be charged on these cards, it appears that the Ohio law would continue to prohibit any fee charges for the first two years after the card's issue, and the federal law would then apply regarding charges allowed only if the card had been inactive for at least one year.
The federal law also does not apply to cards that are awarded as part of a promotion, so long as the fees and expiration dates are clearly disclosed, or reloadable gift cards that are not intended for gift-giving purposes, i.e. VISA prepaid cards. There is no mention that gift cards given for charitable purposes are exempt.
Please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com or (614) 846-2000 for specific information regarding the retail gift card laws.
Effective August 2006, Ohio law requires a "gift card" be sold with an expiration date of not less than two years after its date of issue. A "gift card" is defined as a "certificate...or other medium issued by a merchant that evidences the giving of consideration in exchange for the right to redeem the certificate...for goods, services, credit or money of at least equal value[.]" It does not include a prepaid calling card. In addition to the two year minimum expiration period, no service fees or charges of any kind can be made against the purchased gift card during that time. This includes, but is not limited to, dormancy fees, latency fees and administrative fees that operate to reduce the amount for which the holder of the gift card may redeem the gift card.
There are a number of exceptions to the Ohio law. It does not apply to gifts cards distributed as part of a rewards program or promotional program without money or anything of value being given by the consumer for the card. It also does not apply to gift cards given by employers to employees for use at the employer's business establishment, or to gift cards that are sold in volume to employers or nonprofit and charitable organizations below face value for fundraising purposes, provided that the card expires no more than thirty days from the date of sale. There are additional exemptions provided for in Ohio law, so please consult one of our attorneys regarding a specific situation of concern.
Only recently did the federal government also become involved in regulating retail gift cards. Effective August 22, 2010, the Credit CARD Act provisions regarding retail gift cards will prohibit gift cards issued after that date from expiring for at least five years. Effectively, this means that on August 22, 2010, any gift card issued in Ohio cannot contain an expiration date of less than five years. In this situation, the less protective state laws will be superseded by the more protective federal law. In addition, if the card expires with unspent money remaining, the card holder can request a replacement card in the remaining unspent balance. Federal law will also require all expiration dates and fees of any kind to be clearly disclosed on the card and/or its packaging. The federal law will also prohibit a retailer from charging any fees against the amount of the gift card unless the card has been inactive for at least one year, and then only one fee can be charged per month. Regarding fees that can be charged on these cards, it appears that the Ohio law would continue to prohibit any fee charges for the first two years after the card's issue, and the federal law would then apply regarding charges allowed only if the card had been inactive for at least one year.
The federal law also does not apply to cards that are awarded as part of a promotion, so long as the fees and expiration dates are clearly disclosed, or reloadable gift cards that are not intended for gift-giving purposes, i.e. VISA prepaid cards. There is no mention that gift cards given for charitable purposes are exempt.
Please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com or (614) 846-2000 for specific information regarding the retail gift card laws.
Ohio Workers' Compensation Subrogation Law
A subrogation action allows a subrogee to obtain reimbursement of costs and expenses paid on behalf of a workers' compensation claimant, from a third party that is liable to the claimant for the same injury. Such an action prevents a claimant from recovering twice for the same injury, while providing equity for the party paying the employee's workers' compensation benefits. Ohio's history regarding subrogation in workers' compensation is extremely complicated. In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Ohio's first such subrogation statute, which was subsequently amended in 1995. In 2001, the 1995 amendments were declared unconstitutional. Three years later, the original 1993 statute was declared unconstitutional. To correct these problems, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the most recent version of Ohio Revised Code 4123.931, which became effective in 2003. The 2003 statute was declared facially constitutional by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 2008 decision Groch v. General Motors Corp. Consequently, it appears that the current statute will be the law of Ohio for the foreseeable future.
Who can file a subrogation action in Ohio? Since Ohio operates under a publicly-funded workers' compensation system, Ohio law defines the "statutory subrogee" as the "administrator of workers' compensation [the Bureau of Workers' Compensation], a self-insuring employer, or an employer that contracts for the direct payment of medical services[.]" The statute does not provide relief for an employer that participates in the state fund program, and does not otherwise contract for direct payment of medical benefits.
An Ohio statutory subrogee has a "right of recovery...against a third party[,]"which creates an independent right of recovery as opposed to a derivative right of recovery. This distinction is significant because the statutory subrogee can maintain a subrogation action even if the claimant has not pursued a claim against the third party on his or her own. Therefore, it is extremely important that notice be provided to the statutory subrogee regarding the existence of a potential third party, in order to protect its subrogation rights. The law requires a claimant to notify the statutory subrogee and the Attorney General of any potential third parties "against whom the claimant has or may have a right of recovery[.]" Any settlement, or other recovery, is not final until and unless the statutory subrogee has been notified and provided reasonable opportunity to assert its subrogation rights.
The "subrogation interest" that a statutory subrogee may recover is defined as "past, present, and estimated future payments of compensation, medical benefits, rehabilitation costs, or death benefits, and any other costs or expenses paid to or on behalf of the claimant[.]" To obtain reimbursement for these costs, the statutory subrogee's right of recovery against a third party includes, but is not limited to, amounts recoverable from a claimant's insurer "in connection with underinsured or uninsured motorist coverage", from a political subdivision, and from an intentional tort action. The statutory subrogee's right to reimbursement from these sources is intended to create equity in a workers' compensation system that requires an employer to compensate an injured employee regardless of fault.
Once the statutory subrogee demonstrates an entitlement to reimbursement, the amount is determined by a complex formula set forth in Ohio Revised Code 4123.931(B) and (D). The Supreme Court of Ohio laid out a helpful example of this formula in the Groch case. The Court stated that "[a]s a practical matter, the formula divides the ‘net amount recovered' by the claimant from a third party in such a way that the subrogee receives a proportionate share based on its ‘subrogation interest' and the claimant receives an amount proportionate to his ‘uncompensated damages'." Essentially, the formula is the Ohio General Assembly's attempt to weigh the various parties' equitable interests in the matter, and making everyone share in the recovery from a third party.
There is one key difference between the constitutional subrogation law enacted in 2003, and its unconstitutional predecessor. A claimant now has the option to place the total amount of the subrogation interest, representing estimated future payments, into an interest bearing trust account, instead of making it immediately payable to the statutory subrogee. By doing this, the claimant can preserve the subrogation amount, and in situations that arise making the payment of future compensation unnecessary, any amount unpaid on behalf of the claimant will be retained by the claimant.
A statutory subrogee should fully analyze potential sources of recovery that may be available, paying close attention to all relevant statutes of limitation. As a claimant, it is necessary to notify the statutory subrogee, as required, if there are amounts potentially recoverable from third parties. Abiding by these requirements provides for equity in the system that allows recovery for the injured worker without proof of fault.
For more information, please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com.
A subrogation action allows a subrogee to obtain reimbursement of costs and expenses paid on behalf of a workers' compensation claimant, from a third party that is liable to the claimant for the same injury. Such an action prevents a claimant from recovering twice for the same injury, while providing equity for the party paying the employee's workers' compensation benefits. Ohio's history regarding subrogation in workers' compensation is extremely complicated. In 1993, the General Assembly enacted Ohio's first such subrogation statute, which was subsequently amended in 1995. In 2001, the 1995 amendments were declared unconstitutional. Three years later, the original 1993 statute was declared unconstitutional. To correct these problems, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the most recent version of Ohio Revised Code 4123.931, which became effective in 2003. The 2003 statute was declared facially constitutional by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 2008 decision Groch v. General Motors Corp. Consequently, it appears that the current statute will be the law of Ohio for the foreseeable future.
Who can file a subrogation action in Ohio? Since Ohio operates under a publicly-funded workers' compensation system, Ohio law defines the "statutory subrogee" as the "administrator of workers' compensation [the Bureau of Workers' Compensation], a self-insuring employer, or an employer that contracts for the direct payment of medical services[.]" The statute does not provide relief for an employer that participates in the state fund program, and does not otherwise contract for direct payment of medical benefits.
An Ohio statutory subrogee has a "right of recovery...against a third party[,]"which creates an independent right of recovery as opposed to a derivative right of recovery. This distinction is significant because the statutory subrogee can maintain a subrogation action even if the claimant has not pursued a claim against the third party on his or her own. Therefore, it is extremely important that notice be provided to the statutory subrogee regarding the existence of a potential third party, in order to protect its subrogation rights. The law requires a claimant to notify the statutory subrogee and the Attorney General of any potential third parties "against whom the claimant has or may have a right of recovery[.]" Any settlement, or other recovery, is not final until and unless the statutory subrogee has been notified and provided reasonable opportunity to assert its subrogation rights.
The "subrogation interest" that a statutory subrogee may recover is defined as "past, present, and estimated future payments of compensation, medical benefits, rehabilitation costs, or death benefits, and any other costs or expenses paid to or on behalf of the claimant[.]" To obtain reimbursement for these costs, the statutory subrogee's right of recovery against a third party includes, but is not limited to, amounts recoverable from a claimant's insurer "in connection with underinsured or uninsured motorist coverage", from a political subdivision, and from an intentional tort action. The statutory subrogee's right to reimbursement from these sources is intended to create equity in a workers' compensation system that requires an employer to compensate an injured employee regardless of fault.
Once the statutory subrogee demonstrates an entitlement to reimbursement, the amount is determined by a complex formula set forth in Ohio Revised Code 4123.931(B) and (D). The Supreme Court of Ohio laid out a helpful example of this formula in the Groch case. The Court stated that "[a]s a practical matter, the formula divides the ‘net amount recovered' by the claimant from a third party in such a way that the subrogee receives a proportionate share based on its ‘subrogation interest' and the claimant receives an amount proportionate to his ‘uncompensated damages'." Essentially, the formula is the Ohio General Assembly's attempt to weigh the various parties' equitable interests in the matter, and making everyone share in the recovery from a third party.
There is one key difference between the constitutional subrogation law enacted in 2003, and its unconstitutional predecessor. A claimant now has the option to place the total amount of the subrogation interest, representing estimated future payments, into an interest bearing trust account, instead of making it immediately payable to the statutory subrogee. By doing this, the claimant can preserve the subrogation amount, and in situations that arise making the payment of future compensation unnecessary, any amount unpaid on behalf of the claimant will be retained by the claimant.
A statutory subrogee should fully analyze potential sources of recovery that may be available, paying close attention to all relevant statutes of limitation. As a claimant, it is necessary to notify the statutory subrogee, as required, if there are amounts potentially recoverable from third parties. Abiding by these requirements provides for equity in the system that allows recovery for the injured worker without proof of fault.
For more information, please contact Alicia Nesline Shaw at ashaw@chcv.com.
What is an S Corporation?
An S corporation is a form of business classified for federal income tax purposes as a corporation that has elected to be taxed as a pass-through entity, in a manner similar to a partnership or sole proprietor. Unlike a regular corporation, or C corporation, an S corporation (both names derive from sections of the Internal Revenue Code) generally is not subject to federal income tax. Instead, its income is reported on the tax returns of its shareholders, and they have the responsibility for paying the tax. If there are losses suffered by the corporation, they also pass through and are reported on the shareholders' income tax returns.
Because only the shareholders, and not the corporation, are taxed, S corporations avoid the problem of double taxation associated with C corporations. This is the biggest draw for creating an S corporation, particularly for closely held corporations.
Shareholders in an S corporation, like shareholders in a C corporation, generally have limited liability arising from corporate matters, even though they pay taxes as if they were partners or sole proprietors. In addition, when the corporation eventually is sold, there can be reduced taxable gains, as compared with the sale of a business operating as a C corporation.
On the downside, the limitation on classes of stock in an S corporation provides less control over the company and the value of its stock. Potential outside investors may not be attracted by the pass-through tax characteristics of an S corporation, nor by the limit on the number of shareholders. Although corporate taxes are avoided, there is still a requirement for filing an informational tax return every year for a corporation with more than one owner. Many other tax and non-tax factors may enter into the decision as to whether an S corporation is appropriate (for example, it is almost always a bad idea to own real estate in an S or C corporation, as opposed to a limited liability company, because of the more favorable tax treatments a limited liability company provides). Accordingly, each situation should be thoroughly reviewed with your CPA and attorney before making the decision.
For more information, please contact Alan Veatch at aveatch@chcv.com
An S corporation is a form of business classified for federal income tax purposes as a corporation that has elected to be taxed as a pass-through entity, in a manner similar to a partnership or sole proprietor. Unlike a regular corporation, or C corporation, an S corporation (both names derive from sections of the Internal Revenue Code) generally is not subject to federal income tax. Instead, its income is reported on the tax returns of its shareholders, and they have the responsibility for paying the tax. If there are losses suffered by the corporation, they also pass through and are reported on the shareholders' income tax returns.
Because only the shareholders, and not the corporation, are taxed, S corporations avoid the problem of double taxation associated with C corporations. This is the biggest draw for creating an S corporation, particularly for closely held corporations.
Shareholders in an S corporation, like shareholders in a C corporation, generally have limited liability arising from corporate matters, even though they pay taxes as if they were partners or sole proprietors. In addition, when the corporation eventually is sold, there can be reduced taxable gains, as compared with the sale of a business operating as a C corporation.
On the downside, the limitation on classes of stock in an S corporation provides less control over the company and the value of its stock. Potential outside investors may not be attracted by the pass-through tax characteristics of an S corporation, nor by the limit on the number of shareholders. Although corporate taxes are avoided, there is still a requirement for filing an informational tax return every year for a corporation with more than one owner. Many other tax and non-tax factors may enter into the decision as to whether an S corporation is appropriate (for example, it is almost always a bad idea to own real estate in an S or C corporation, as opposed to a limited liability company, because of the more favorable tax treatments a limited liability company provides). Accordingly, each situation should be thoroughly reviewed with your CPA and attorney before making the decision.
For more information, please contact Alan Veatch at aveatch@chcv.com
MySpace, Students, and Free Speech
In separate cases, two public school students used MySpace to post disparaging comments about each of their principals. Each of the students was punished with a suspension from school, and each made a federal case out of it, literally, by suing on the basis of alleged infringement of the right of free speech. Both cases arose in the same state, and the same federal appellate court decided appeals in the cases on the same day. The parallels end there, however, because one student succeeded in his First Amendment argument while the other student did not.
The explanation for the different outcomes in the cases boils down to different conclusions as to whether the speech engaged in by the students had at least the potential to be substantially disruptive of school activities, even though both forms of speech occurred off of school grounds. No doubt, in both cases, the targeted principals had bruised feelings, at the very least, but that was not the pivotal consideration.
Profile Goes Too Far
In the unsuccessful case, an eighth grader's suspension was upheld after she created a personal "profile" of her principal in which she went so far as to suggest that he was a pedophile and a sex addict. The court acknowledged that criticisms of school officials, even when in bad taste, are not to be censored. However, more than simply being critical or disrespectful, the language used by the student was highly offensive, potentially very damaging to the principal and the school, and maybe even illegal. The insinuations, even if made in jest, went right to the heart of whether the principal was fit to serve in his position, undermining his authority within the school.
Parody May Be Allowed
By contrast, the same court found that a school had gone too far when it suspended a high school student after he created a profile of his principal on MySpace, using his grandmother's home computer. In this case, the content of the posting could be described as a parody, as it made fun of the principal because of his large size. The parody used some offensive language, but on the whole it did not disrupt, or have the potential to disrupt, the student's school, even though it was highly embarrassing for the principal.
It bears emphasizing that in both cases the students enjoyed much more freedom of expression, although not without limits, than they would have had while at school or in school sponsored activities. In those settings, as the court noted in one of the cases, there is no First Amendment protection for lewd, vulgar, indecent, and plainly offensive speech, and school officials do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over student speech so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. In short, the lesson for students from these cases could be not only "don't try this at home," but also, and more emphatically, "never try this at school."
For more information, please contact Jeff Patter at jpatter@chcv.com
In separate cases, two public school students used MySpace to post disparaging comments about each of their principals. Each of the students was punished with a suspension from school, and each made a federal case out of it, literally, by suing on the basis of alleged infringement of the right of free speech. Both cases arose in the same state, and the same federal appellate court decided appeals in the cases on the same day. The parallels end there, however, because one student succeeded in his First Amendment argument while the other student did not.
The explanation for the different outcomes in the cases boils down to different conclusions as to whether the speech engaged in by the students had at least the potential to be substantially disruptive of school activities, even though both forms of speech occurred off of school grounds. No doubt, in both cases, the targeted principals had bruised feelings, at the very least, but that was not the pivotal consideration.
Profile Goes Too Far
In the unsuccessful case, an eighth grader's suspension was upheld after she created a personal "profile" of her principal in which she went so far as to suggest that he was a pedophile and a sex addict. The court acknowledged that criticisms of school officials, even when in bad taste, are not to be censored. However, more than simply being critical or disrespectful, the language used by the student was highly offensive, potentially very damaging to the principal and the school, and maybe even illegal. The insinuations, even if made in jest, went right to the heart of whether the principal was fit to serve in his position, undermining his authority within the school.
Parody May Be Allowed
By contrast, the same court found that a school had gone too far when it suspended a high school student after he created a profile of his principal on MySpace, using his grandmother's home computer. In this case, the content of the posting could be described as a parody, as it made fun of the principal because of his large size. The parody used some offensive language, but on the whole it did not disrupt, or have the potential to disrupt, the student's school, even though it was highly embarrassing for the principal.
It bears emphasizing that in both cases the students enjoyed much more freedom of expression, although not without limits, than they would have had while at school or in school sponsored activities. In those settings, as the court noted in one of the cases, there is no First Amendment protection for lewd, vulgar, indecent, and plainly offensive speech, and school officials do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over student speech so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. In short, the lesson for students from these cases could be not only "don't try this at home," but also, and more emphatically, "never try this at school."
For more information, please contact Jeff Patter at jpatter@chcv.com
Tax Credits for Historic Preservation
For over 30 years, the federal government has been using tax incentives to help preserve historic buildings. Originally, federal law allowed accelerated depreciation on rehabilitated buildings, but subsequent changes have made preservation and revitalization efforts even more attractive to taxpayers.
Today, there is a general business credit equal to 20% of qualified rehabilitation expenses for a certified historic structure, or a 10% tax credit for the qualified rehabilitation of nonhistoric, nonresidential buildings first placed into service before 1936. Eligibility for the tax incentives is determined by the National Park Service.
Tax credits are often more beneficial to taxpayers than deductions are, since every dollar of a tax credit reduces the amount of income tax owed by one dollar.
The 20% credit for the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure applies to commercial, industrial, agricultural, rental, or residential properties, but not to properties used exclusively as the owner's private residence. A certified historic structure must be a building as opposed to another type of structure. To have the required historic status, the building must be either listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district and certified as being of historic significance to the district.
Eligibility for the 20% credit also depends on meeting some additional requirements. For example, the building must be depreciable, that is, used in a trade or business or held to produce income. The rehabilitation must be substantial, generally defined as entailing expenditures exceeding the adjusted basis of the building and its structural components. Generally, this requirement must be met within two years or within five years for a project completed in multiple phases.
Qualified rehabilitation expenses include such items as architectural and engineering fees, site survey and development fees, legal expenses, and other construction related costs, so long as they are added to the basis of the property, are reasonable, and are related to services performed.
The owner of the rehabilitated building must hold it for five years after completion of the rehabilitation or else pay back all or part of the 20% credit. A sale in the first year means that the entire credit is recaptured. The recapture amount is reduced by 20% per year for properties held between one and five years.
The 10% credit for nonhistoric buildings constructed before 1936 shares some of the requirements for the 20% credit, such as that the rehabilitation be substantial and the property be depreciable. However, only buildings rehabilitated for nonresidential uses qualify for the 10% credit. In addition, so that the identity of the original building is not lost in the process, projects undertaken for the 10% credit must meet specific tests based on retention of minimum percentages of the building's walls and internal structural framework.
For more information, please contact Dave Hornbeck at dhornbeck@chcv.com
For over 30 years, the federal government has been using tax incentives to help preserve historic buildings. Originally, federal law allowed accelerated depreciation on rehabilitated buildings, but subsequent changes have made preservation and revitalization efforts even more attractive to taxpayers.
Today, there is a general business credit equal to 20% of qualified rehabilitation expenses for a certified historic structure, or a 10% tax credit for the qualified rehabilitation of nonhistoric, nonresidential buildings first placed into service before 1936. Eligibility for the tax incentives is determined by the National Park Service.
Tax credits are often more beneficial to taxpayers than deductions are, since every dollar of a tax credit reduces the amount of income tax owed by one dollar.
The 20% credit for the rehabilitation of a certified historic structure applies to commercial, industrial, agricultural, rental, or residential properties, but not to properties used exclusively as the owner's private residence. A certified historic structure must be a building as opposed to another type of structure. To have the required historic status, the building must be either listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic district and certified as being of historic significance to the district.
Eligibility for the 20% credit also depends on meeting some additional requirements. For example, the building must be depreciable, that is, used in a trade or business or held to produce income. The rehabilitation must be substantial, generally defined as entailing expenditures exceeding the adjusted basis of the building and its structural components. Generally, this requirement must be met within two years or within five years for a project completed in multiple phases.
Qualified rehabilitation expenses include such items as architectural and engineering fees, site survey and development fees, legal expenses, and other construction related costs, so long as they are added to the basis of the property, are reasonable, and are related to services performed.
The owner of the rehabilitated building must hold it for five years after completion of the rehabilitation or else pay back all or part of the 20% credit. A sale in the first year means that the entire credit is recaptured. The recapture amount is reduced by 20% per year for properties held between one and five years.
The 10% credit for nonhistoric buildings constructed before 1936 shares some of the requirements for the 20% credit, such as that the rehabilitation be substantial and the property be depreciable. However, only buildings rehabilitated for nonresidential uses qualify for the 10% credit. In addition, so that the identity of the original building is not lost in the process, projects undertaken for the 10% credit must meet specific tests based on retention of minimum percentages of the building's walls and internal structural framework.
For more information, please contact Dave Hornbeck at dhornbeck@chcv.com
Choosing an Executor for Your Will
The designation of an executor for a will is one of the critical steps in effective estate planning. The executor will be the individual or institution (such as a bank) responsible for the administration of the estate. He or she must submit the will for probate, identify and gather the decedent's assets, pay the decedent's final bills, and distribute the assets in accordance with the terms of the will. Good recordkeeping is essential because an accounting will have to be filed. Creditors' claims may have to be dealt with, and state and/or federal estate tax returns may have to be filed.
In short, the job of the executor is a substantial responsibility and can be very time-consuming, especially when it comes to large or complicated estates. Characteristics of an appropriate executor include the trustworthiness, sound judgment, financial acumen, age, and physical and mental capacity. More than one executor can be named, and the coexecutors can share the duties of administering the estate.
In the case of married couples, the first instinct may be simply to name the other spouse as the executor. While this may work just fine in some cases, the decision deserves more thought as to all of the ramifications of choosing one's spouse as the executor. Will the mourning, surviving spouse be up to fulfilling all of the executor's responsibilities so soon after suffering such a loss? If the spouses are about the same age, will the surviving spouse be too frail, physically or mentally, to do the job when the time comes, perhaps many years after the executor has been named? A better choice may be an adult son or daughter, a sibling, niece, or nephew, or a close and trusted friend.
The job of executor will be substantially easier if the testator has kept complete and accurate records of the assets that will comprise the estate. Upon naming the executor, the testator should review this information with the executor in detail. Another seemingly obvious matter that is often overlooked is simply making sure that the executor knows the location of all of the important papers relating to the estate.
An executor is entitled to compensation for his or her services. The amount of that compensation is generally established by state law and/or the Probate Court (and is also taxable income to the executor, unlike an inheritance).
For more information, please contact Alan Veatch at aveatch@chcv.com or Misty Aldrich at maldrich@chcv.com
The designation of an executor for a will is one of the critical steps in effective estate planning. The executor will be the individual or institution (such as a bank) responsible for the administration of the estate. He or she must submit the will for probate, identify and gather the decedent's assets, pay the decedent's final bills, and distribute the assets in accordance with the terms of the will. Good recordkeeping is essential because an accounting will have to be filed. Creditors' claims may have to be dealt with, and state and/or federal estate tax returns may have to be filed.
In short, the job of the executor is a substantial responsibility and can be very time-consuming, especially when it comes to large or complicated estates. Characteristics of an appropriate executor include the trustworthiness, sound judgment, financial acumen, age, and physical and mental capacity. More than one executor can be named, and the coexecutors can share the duties of administering the estate.
In the case of married couples, the first instinct may be simply to name the other spouse as the executor. While this may work just fine in some cases, the decision deserves more thought as to all of the ramifications of choosing one's spouse as the executor. Will the mourning, surviving spouse be up to fulfilling all of the executor's responsibilities so soon after suffering such a loss? If the spouses are about the same age, will the surviving spouse be too frail, physically or mentally, to do the job when the time comes, perhaps many years after the executor has been named? A better choice may be an adult son or daughter, a sibling, niece, or nephew, or a close and trusted friend.
The job of executor will be substantially easier if the testator has kept complete and accurate records of the assets that will comprise the estate. Upon naming the executor, the testator should review this information with the executor in detail. Another seemingly obvious matter that is often overlooked is simply making sure that the executor knows the location of all of the important papers relating to the estate.
An executor is entitled to compensation for his or her services. The amount of that compensation is generally established by state law and/or the Probate Court (and is also taxable income to the executor, unlike an inheritance).
For more information, please contact Alan Veatch at aveatch@chcv.com or Misty Aldrich at maldrich@chcv.com
Overtime Pay Update
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay an employee an overtime rate of at least one and one-half times the regular pay rate for any hours in excess of 40 hours a week. There are exemptions from this requirement for several types of employees, including employees in executive, administrative, or professional capacities.
Two recent decisions by federal appellate courts illustrate the fine distinctions that are sometimes made between employees who are deemed entitled to overtime and those who are not because they are employed in an "administrative" capacity.
Under the FLSA and its regulations, an employee earning at least a threshold amount per week is an administrative employee if his or her primary duties consist of the performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to the management policies or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers and if the work requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
Insurance Adjusters Exempt
In the first case, the primary duty of an insurance company's automobile damage adjusters consisted of the assessment, negotiation, and settlement of automobile damage claims, making the adjusters exempt from the FLSA overtime pay provision. The fact that the adjusters engaged in total loss negotiations 20 times per year demonstrated that their duty included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
The adjusters also worked in the absence of immediate supervision the majority of the time and made decisions that were reviewed only after the estimate had been written and the claim had been paid. They had full authority to settle claims within their limits of $10,000 or $15,000, as long as they could justify their decision on the facts of each claim, thereby binding their employer financially.
Saleswoman Entitled to OT
By contrast, in the second case, an advertising saleswoman for a magazine publisher, who was also compensated weekly above the threshold amount, was not an "administrative employee" for the purposes of the FLSA, and thus was entitled to overtime pay.
The employer pointed out that the employee's responsibilities included developing new clients, with the goal of increasing sales generally, and that this task concerned general management and business operations. That was true as far as it went, but the fact remained that the employee's primary duty, meaning the duty that consumed a major part, or over 50%, of her time, was simply to sell specific advertising space to clients. Since, in the court's view, the employee was "plainly a salesperson," she had to receive overtime pay whenever it was earned.
For more information, please contact Jeff Patter at jpatter@chcv.com.
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay an employee an overtime rate of at least one and one-half times the regular pay rate for any hours in excess of 40 hours a week. There are exemptions from this requirement for several types of employees, including employees in executive, administrative, or professional capacities.
Two recent decisions by federal appellate courts illustrate the fine distinctions that are sometimes made between employees who are deemed entitled to overtime and those who are not because they are employed in an "administrative" capacity.
Under the FLSA and its regulations, an employee earning at least a threshold amount per week is an administrative employee if his or her primary duties consist of the performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to the management policies or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers and if the work requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
Insurance Adjusters Exempt
In the first case, the primary duty of an insurance company's automobile damage adjusters consisted of the assessment, negotiation, and settlement of automobile damage claims, making the adjusters exempt from the FLSA overtime pay provision. The fact that the adjusters engaged in total loss negotiations 20 times per year demonstrated that their duty included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
The adjusters also worked in the absence of immediate supervision the majority of the time and made decisions that were reviewed only after the estimate had been written and the claim had been paid. They had full authority to settle claims within their limits of $10,000 or $15,000, as long as they could justify their decision on the facts of each claim, thereby binding their employer financially.
Saleswoman Entitled to OT
By contrast, in the second case, an advertising saleswoman for a magazine publisher, who was also compensated weekly above the threshold amount, was not an "administrative employee" for the purposes of the FLSA, and thus was entitled to overtime pay.
The employer pointed out that the employee's responsibilities included developing new clients, with the goal of increasing sales generally, and that this task concerned general management and business operations. That was true as far as it went, but the fact remained that the employee's primary duty, meaning the duty that consumed a major part, or over 50%, of her time, was simply to sell specific advertising space to clients. Since, in the court's view, the employee was "plainly a salesperson," she had to receive overtime pay whenever it was earned.
For more information, please contact Jeff Patter at jpatter@chcv.com.