Radcliffe v. Artromick International, Inc.

Since I am unable to agree with the breadth of the majority’s interpretation of the term “work,” as used within R.C. 4141.291(A), I must respectfully dissent as both the rationale and the result fly in the face of common sense.

At the outset, I would note that the majority correctly observes that the General Assembly has chosen to use the word “work” at least eighty-nine times within R.C. Chapter 4141, without providing a definition for the term. In view of the ambiguity which has arisen as a result of the absence of a definitional section for the term, I would urge that the General Assembly…