 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Faulkner v. Mayfield3/25/1988
able to afford the costs of medical treatment for on-the-job injuries and most likely to be deprived of their ability to make a living in the future if they are physically disabled. An amputation as we have in this case is particularly disabling to a person who does non-skilled physical labor. A physical disability may continue for life, long after the crime and the fine are forgotten.
A classification based on wealth is constitutionally suspect. Walker v. Stokes (1975), 45 Ohio App.2d 275, 74 O.O. 2d 402, 344 N.E.2d 159. See, also, In re Jackson (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 51, 55 O.O. 2d 45, 268 N.E.2d 812, which cites and follows Williams v. Illinois (1970), 399 U.S. 235. People who do not have the money to pay off their fines can be described, almost by definition, as poor. While the option of working off the fine is available to most defendants, as a practical matter only those who can find economic advantage in working at thirty dollars per day will select that option.
It should be remembered here that a statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it is not all-embracing, or because it does not correct all evils. State v. Buckley (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 128, 45 O.O. 2d 469, 243 N.E.2d 66. A statute may be drafted which does not include every possible member of a class; rather, the legislature may exercise considerable discretion in drawing its distinctions. Paragraph two of the syllabus in Porter v. Oberlin (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 143, 30 O.O. 2d 491, 205 N.E.2d 363, holds:
"Legislation must apply alike to all persons within a class, and reasonable grounds must exist for making a distinction between those within and those without a designated class. Within the limits of these restrictive rules, a legislative body has a wide measure of discretion."
Arguably, a provision in R.C. Chapter 4123 denying participation to defendants working off their fines might, in spite of its suspect effect on poor people, be upheld.
However, a suspect classification within R.C. Chapter 4123 is not the issue here. The language of the statute mandates workers' compensation coverage for all workers, except for the two minor exceptions noted above. The question is: Did the Industrial Commission's narrow interpretation of the very broad language of the statute create a suspect class? We think it has. By establishing the program for working off fines, the Lawrence County Municipal Court created a new kind of employment relationship, or at least one not ordinarily seen before. This kind of innovation should not be weakened or destroyed by the interjection of an administrative interpretation which creates a constitutionally suspect classification.
One final point which must be included in our opinion is the matter of costs. We begin by noting that costs of the accidents do not go away by administrative fiat or court decision. The costs will either be borne entirely by the injured individual, or spread equitably among all workers and employers under the workers' compensation system. Since R.C. Chapter 4123 mandates that all workers be covered, if a court elects to adopt a program where defendants can work off their fines, the court must also obtain workers' compensation coverage and pay workers' compensation premiums. See 1982 Ohio Atty. Gen. Ops. No. 82-045, supra.
The costs of these premiums will not go away either, and they must be paid by someone. A municipal court will no doubt have to make some adjustment in the level of compensation allowed to defendants working off their fines just as any other employer includes the costs of workers' compensation premiums in calculating the value of an employees' services.
Based on the fore
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|