Hamilton v. Ameristone, L.L.C.

[Cite as Hamilton v. Ameristone, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-1465.]


                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      STARK COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


  SHAWN HAMILTON,                                    Case No. 2025CA00127

   Plaintiff - Appellant                             Opinion And Judgment Entry

  -vs-                                               Appeal from the Stark County Court of
                                                     Common Pleas, Case No. 2025CV00762
  AMERISTONE, LLC, ET AL.,
                                                     Judgment: Affirmed
  Defendants - Appellees
                                                     Date of Judgment Entry: April 23, 2026



BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges

APPEARANCES: JOHN MCGAHEE, JR., for Plaintiff-Appellant; CHRISTINE C.
STEELE and JONATHAN P. SAXTON, for Defendant-Appellee; and EDWARD T.
SAADI, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL




Montgomery, J.


                                  STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         {¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Shawn Hamilton (“Appellant”), filed a Complaint

against Ameristone LLC, American Countertops, Inc., Noah Troyer, Ohio Bureau of

Worker’s Compensation and John Doe Entities 1-10 in the Stark County Court of

Common Pleas on April 3, 2025.

         {¶2} Defendant-Appellees, Ameristone, LLC, American Countertops, Inc. and

Noah Troyer (“Appellees”), filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to

Civ.R. 12(C). Appellant responded to Appellees’ motion by filing a Brief in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, Motion for

Leave to File Amended Complaint Instanter.

      {¶3} Appellees responded to Appellant’s motion and filed Defendant’s Reply in

Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

      {¶4} The trial court denied Appellant’s request to file an amended complaint and

granted Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 5, 2025, through

its Judgment Entry Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Instanter. (hereinafter

“9/5/25 Judgment Entry”)

                            ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

      {¶5} Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal with this Court and asserts the

following assignments of error:

      {¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A JUDGEMENT [SIC] ON

THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.”

      {¶7} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT GRANTING

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT.”

                              STATEMENT OF FACTS

      {¶8} Appellant was injured at work while employed by Appellees, Ameristone

and/or American Countertops on April 12, 2023.

      {¶9} Appellee, Noah Troyer (“Troyer”), is the owner, manager and/or employee

of Ameristone and/or American Countertops. Troyer was acting within the scope of his

employment when a forklift he was operating injured Appellant.
      {¶10} Appellees, Ameristone and/or American Countertops, were insured by the

Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation (“BWC”) on the date of Appellant’s injury.

9/5/25 Judgment Entry, p. 11.

      {¶11} Appellant has received workers’ compensation benefits for his injury. Id.

                              STANDARD OF REVIEW

                            Judgment on the Pleadings

      {¶12} Civ.R. 12(C) states, "After the pleadings are closed but within such time as

not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings."

      {¶13} On appeal, the standard of review for a Civ.R. 12(C) motion is the same as

the standard of review for a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Motion. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.

Belden Oak Furniture Outlet, Inc., 2010-Ohio-4444, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.). Prior to dismissing

a complaint based upon a 12(C) motion, “[t]he court must accept the factual allegations

in the complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party. Appellate review of the dismissal of a complaint based upon a motion for judgment

on the pleadings requires an independent review of the complaint to determine if the

dismissal was appropriate.” Estate of Heath v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 2002-Ohio-5494,

¶ 8. A reviewing court need not defer to the trial court's decision in such cases. Rich v.

Erie Cty. Depart. of Human Resources, 106 Ohio App.3d 88, 91 (1995).

      {¶14} “A motion for a judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C),

presents only questions of law.” Mackay v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-4154, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.),

citing Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 165-166 (1973). The determination of a

motion under Civ.R. 12(C) is restricted solely to the allegations in the pleadings and the

nonmoving party is entitled to have all material allegations in the complaint, with all

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, construed in its favor. Id.
                            Motion to Amend Complaint

       {¶15} This Court has stated, “A trial court's determination whether to grant a

motion for leave to amend a complaint will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of

discretion.” Darulis v. Ayers (Feb. 2, 1999), 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6582. “To

demonstrate abuse of discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend complaint,

appellant must demonstrate more than error of law and that the trial court's denial of the

motion was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Rockford Homes, Inc. v. Handel,

2007-Ohio-2581, ¶ 54 (5th Dist.).

                                       ANALYSIS

       {¶16} Appellant’s first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by

granting Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We disagree.

       {¶17} In the case at hand Appellant alleged in his Complaint that Troyer was not

certified to operate the forklift and that he had “multiple prior accidents” while using a

forklift. Complaint, ¶ 8.

       {¶18} Appellant alleged that he was injured when Troyer “[n]egligently, recklessly

and with substantial certainty of causing injury to Plaintiff, operated a forklift running

over Plaintiff and causing Plaintiff to sustain serious injuries.” Complaint, ¶ 10 and ¶ 16.

Appellant also alleged that Appellees were “[n]egligent per se in that they violated various

statutes and regulations governing labor and industry standards.” Id., ¶ 20. Appellant also

alleges that, “As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence and

negligence per se, Plaintiff suffered serious physical and emotional injuries and damages”

Id., ¶ 20.

       {¶19} Appellees, Ameristone and/or American Countertops, were insured by the

Ohio BWC at the time of Appellant’s workplace injury.
      {¶20} Appellees filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Civ.R.

12(C) stating that claims of negligence and negligence per se cannot be brought against

them pursuant to R.C. 4123.74 and R.C. 4123.741.

      {¶21} Ohio Revised Code 4123.74 states:

      Employers who comply with section 4123.35 of the Revised Code shall not

      be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for any injury,

      or occupational disease, or bodily condition, received or contracted by any

      employee in the course of or arising out of his employment, or for any death

      resulting from such injury, occupational disease, or bodily condition

      occurring during the period covered by such premium so paid into the state

      insurance fund or during the interval the employer is a self-insuring

      employer, whether or not such injury, occupational disease, bodily

      condition, or death is compensable under this chapter.

      {¶22} Ohio Revised Code 4123.741 states:

      No employee of any employer, as defined in division (B) of section 4123.01

      of the Revised Code, shall be liable to respond in damages at common law

      or by statute for any injury or occupational disease, received or contracted

      by any other employee of such employer in the course of and arising out of

      the latter employee’s employment, or for any death resulting from such

      injury or occupational disease, on the condition that such injury,

      occupational disease, or death is found to be compensable under sections

      4123.01 to 4123.94 inclusive of the Revised Code.
         {¶23} Appellant argues in his Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

Judgment on the pleadings that R.C. 4123.74 and R.C. 4123.741 do not apply in this case

because he has brought a claim pursuant to R.C. 2745.01.

         {¶24} R.C. 2745.01 states:

         (A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee, or by the

         dependent survivors of a deceased employee, for damages resulting from an

         intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of

         employment, the employer shall not be liable unless the plaintiff proves that

         the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or

         with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.

         (B) As used in this section, “substantially certain” means that an employer

         acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a

         disease, a condition, or death.

         (C) Deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard or

         deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a

         rebuttable presumption that the removal or misrepresentation was

         committed with intent to injure another if an injury or an occupational

         disease or condition occurs as a direct result.

         {¶25} Appellant’s argument is that his allegation in paragraphs 10 and 16 of his

Complaint that Troyer acted “negligently, recklessly and with substantial certainty of

causing injury to Plaintiff” is a claim pursuant to R.C. 2745.01. Plaintiff Brief in

Opposition to Judgment on the Pleadings, p. 2. This Court finds this argument is without

merit.
       {¶26} In order to satisfy a claim pursuant to R.C. 2745.01 a claimant must allege

that an employer or employee acted with intent to injure an employee. The Supreme Court

of Ohio held “[a]bsent a deliberate intent to injure another, an employer is not liable for

a claim alleging an employer intentional tort, and the injured employee's exclusive

remedy is within the workers' compensation system.” Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp

Materials N.A., Inc., 2012-Ohio-5685, ¶ 25. “R.C. 2745.01 limits claims against

employers for intentional torts to circumstances demonstrating a deliberate intent to

cause injury to an employee.” Id., ¶ 29.

       {¶27} In the case at hand, Appellant’s Complaint fails to allege that Appellees

intended to cause injury to him. Appellees were insured by the Ohio Bureau of Workers

Compensation at the time of Appellant’s injury. Therefore, Appellant has failed to set

forth a set of facts that would entitle him to damages under R.C.2745.01.

       {¶28} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶29} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred

when it denied his motion to file an amended complaint. We disagree.

       {¶30} The trial court found that Appellant’s proposed Amended Complaint

“[d]oes not remedy the pleading deficiencies present in the Complaint.” Judgment Entry

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Denying Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Instanter, p. 9. The trial court further found

“The factual allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint are identical to the factual

allegations in the Complaint.” Id. The trial court found that Appellant’s Amended

Complaint failed to allege that Appellees acted with a “deliberate intent to injure.” Id.,

p. 11. Therefore, the trial court reasoned it would be futile to proceed on the Amended

Complaint since it would be dismissed for the same reasons as the Complaint. Id.
      {¶31} This Court finds that the trial court did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily or

unconscionably when it denied Appellant’s motion to file an amended complaint.

      {¶32} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                   CONCLUSION

      {¶33} For the reasons set forth in this decision, the trial court’s Judgment Entry

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Denying Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Instanter is affirmed.

      {¶34} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the

Stark County Court of Common Pleas is Affirmed.

      {¶35} Costs to Appellant.


By: Montgomery, J.

King, P.J. and

Popham, J. concur.