Legal Opinion
Strief v. City of Cincinnati
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 14, 1995No. 93-2507PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The issue presented is whether the word “benefits” as used in R.C. 2744.05(B) includes monies advanced to an injured party by a union benefit plan that must be reimbursed from a subsequent judgment pursuant to a *319subrogation agreement between the injured party and the plan. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
The collateral source setoff provision of R.C. 2744.05(B) states:
“If a claimant receives or is entitled to receive benefits for injuries or loss allegedly incurred from a policy or policies of insurance or any other source, the benefits shall be disclosed to the court, and the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Menefee v. Queen City MetroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Vogel v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Rogers v. City of YoungstownOhio Supreme Court · 1991
3Cited by4 opinions
- Community Ins. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2001
- Hall v. City of ColumbusDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998
- Strief v. CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Community Insurance v. Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Supreme Court · 2001