Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co. L.P.A. (MRR) has been recognized in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings for 2021. The Ohio-based law firm received both national and regional Tier 3 rankings for Transportation Law, as well as regional rankings for other areas of practice.
Law Firms that are ranked by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® are presented in tiers, and are listed on a national and/or regional scale. Receiving a tier designation reflects the high level of respect a firm has earned among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism and their integrity.
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co. L.P.A. has been ranked for 2021 in the following National and Regional Tiers:
- National Rankings
- Tier 3 in Transportation Law
- Regional Rankings
- Tier 1 in Civil Rights Law
- Tier 2 in Insurance Law
- Tier 2 in Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Tier 3 in Transportation Law
- Tier 2 in Commercial Litigation
- Tier 2 in Insurance Law
- Tier 2 in Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
- Tier 2 in Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
- Tier 3 in Education Law
- Tier 3 in Transportation Law
Now in its 40th year, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A. serves clients throughout Ohio from offices in Cleveland and Columbus. The firm provides insurance defense, public sector law, business and commercial law, employment and labor law, workers’ compensation, and general litigation services to regional and national industry leaders, organizations, and individuals.
MRR Partner and Civil Rights Law expert, Todd M. Raskin, has defended civil rights claims for more than 30 years. In this week’s Super Lawyers® article “Defending a Municipality from Section 1983 Lawsuits,” he explains what municipalities should know about defending Section 1983 lawsuits and how civil rights claims proceed in Ohio.
Passed as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S. Code § 1983—or, as it is more commonly referred to, “Section 1983”—is the main legal tool that individuals have to hold local governments and local government agencies legally liable for a civil rights violation. “It doesn’t create any substantive rights for anybody,” Raskin explains. “It’s a federal statute which provides a vehicle for people who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated.”
Read the full story here: https://www.superlawyers.com/ohio/article/defending-a-municipality-from-section-1983-lawsuits…
Todd M. Raskin is a founding partner of Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Co., L.P.A., and is based in the firm’s Cleveland office. He has a diverse legal practice with an emphasis on civil rights and government liability defense, as well as the defense of employers, both public and private. He has tried more than 100 cases to conclusion in 40 years of private practice in many courts throughout Ohio and the Midwest and is a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Board of Trial Advocates, the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys, the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, and the Litigation Counsel of America. Todd has earned his Super Lawyer rating for 9 years in a row, beginning in 2012, for his work in State, Local & Municipal Law, Employment Litigation: Defense, and Professional Liability: Defense.
Ohio H.B. 606 became law effective September 14, 2020. Equally important, the new law’s protections have been made retroactive to March 9, 2020 – the date of Governor Mike DeWine’s first Executive Order relating to the pandemic. The law provides businesses, schools and health care workers relatively broad and comprehensive civil immunity from liability for injuries allegedly related to COVID-19 exposures. The law is similar to others enacted in a growing number of jurisdictions. Under this new Ohio law, individuals, businesses, schools and health care providers generally cannot be held liable for injuries or deaths caused by the transmission of COVID-19 unless the complaining party can show that the alleged condition resulted from “reckless conduct or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct.” In this regard and among other defined terms, the new law provides the following: “reckless conduct” means a “heedless indifference to the consequences” of the risk of possibly causing an exposure to the COVID-19 virus.
If you have any questions about this update, you are invited to contact an attorney at Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A. for assistance.
By: Ryan Bockmuller
Recently, the Ohio Legislature has introduced a number of police reform bills which, if passed, could materially impact the provision of police services in the State of Ohio.
House Bill 706, introduced by Rep. Erica Crawly (D – Dist. 26) and Rep. Thomas West (D – Dist. 49), seeks to enact R.C. § 109.749 which would require peace officers to complete training on de-escalation techniques, implicit bias, procedural justice, and mental health issues, to require information regarding mental health resources and available support be provided to peace officers annually, and to make an appropriation. While the Bill has been introduced in the House, it has not yet been put to a vote. The Bill would need to pass both the House and the Senate before being presented to the Governor for signature. If passed, this Bill would have a limited impact on the day-to-day procedures of police because it only mandates additional training for officers. When factoring in the current political climate surrounding the need for police reform, it is possible such a bill could resonate with voters in an election year and gain enough support to become law.
House Bill 710, introduced by Rep. Terrence Upchurch (D – Dist. 10) and Rep. Sedrick Denson (D – Dist. 33), would amend numerous sections of R.C. § 109, R.C. § 2933, and R.C. § 5503 to prohibit police officers from “engaging in biased policing and other status-based profiling and to require the attorney general’s office to establish rules regarding such police practices.” This Bill has been introduced in the House and has not yet been put to a vote; however, the Bill is unlikely to pass Ohio’s Republican controlled legislature, as written. The Bill is likely too intrusive into the operations of many police forces to be practical and enforcement would be a challenge, due to the subjective nature of bias. Even if passed, it is likely that Governor DeWine, a former prosecutor and attorney general, would veto this Bill due to the challenges presented with enforcement and the stark changes to police procedure that would be required.
House Bill 713, introduced by Thomas West (D – Dist. 49) and Rep. David Leland (D – Dist. 22), would seek to enact R.C. § 109.70 which would prohibit the use of arrest and citation quotas for law enforcement agencies. The Bill has been introduced in the House and has not yet been put to a vote. Again, this bill is unlikely to pass Ohio’s Republican controlled legislature as written. As with HB 710, it is likely too disruptive to the operations of many police forces to be practical, a factor which would likely prevent Governor DeWine, a former prosecutor who understand the needs of law enforcement, from signing the bill into law, even if passed.
House Bill 421, introduced by Rep. Todd Smith (R – Dist. 43) and Rep. Gil Blair (D – Dist. 63), would extend civil and criminal immunity, under R.C. § 2744.01, et seq., to political subdivisions for the acts of hospital police officers acting directly in the discharge of the person’s duties as a police officer and that occurs on the premises of the hospital, or elsewhere, when directly related to the role of being a hospital police officer. This bill has also narrowed the definition of “emergency call,” as stated in R.C. § 2744.01, to mean “communication from a citizen, police dispatch, or a personal observation by a peace officer only if that communication, dispatch, or personal peace officer observation involves or concerns an inherently dangerous situation that demands an immediate response on the part of a peace officer.” H.B. 421 at p. 2.
The current definition of “emergency call” is “a call to duty, including but not limited to, communications from citizens, police dispatches, and personal observations by peace officers of inherently dangerous situations that demand an immediate response on the part of a peace officer.” R.C. 2744.01(A). The Bill has passed the Ohio House unanimously with bipartisan support, 94-0, and is now in committee in the Ohio Senate. Due to unanimous support in the House, this legislation is very likely to pass through the Senate and be signed into law by Governor DeWine. Even if the Governor did attempt to veto the Bill, the Governor’s veto may be overturned with a three-fifths majority in both houses.
For more information on any of this legislation or how it may impact police departments, please contact Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Co. L.P.A. at (440) 248-7906.
By Cara Wright
On June 24, 2020, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals held in Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190176, 2020-Ohio-3440 that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured pharmaceutical distributor in lawsuits brought by governmental entities for costs incurred combating the opioid epidemic.
This declaratory judgment action arose from underlying litigation filed by the states of West Virginia, Michigan and Nevada, alleging that the insured – in this case, Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – acted negligently in failing to investigate, report and refuse to fill suspicious orders of prescription opioids and that the failures to do so contributed to the opioid epidemic, resulting in increased costs for police patrols, judicial expenditures, person and public-works expenditures, substance-abuse treatment and emergency and medical-care services.
The provision of the particular policy at issue provided that the insurer would pay “sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies.” The insurer argued that the policy did not require defense of the claims asserted by the states of West Virginia, Michigan and Nevada because they were seeking to recover their own economic losses, and not losses resulting from any ‘bodily injury’.
The First District rejected this argument. Instead, the Court held that while the governmental entities were seeking to recover their own economic losses, some of those losses (e.g., medical expenses and treatment costs) arose “because of” bodily injury. As a result, the Court found that the claims fell within the terms of the policy and that the insurer owed its insured a duty to defend.
The insurer also argued that its insured knew about the potential harm to individuals from the ingestion of opioids and that, as a result, the claims by the governmental entities were excluded under a policy “loss-in-progress” clause. The First District rejected this argument, too, finding instead that this policy provision was not an exclusion, but instead was a prerequisite to establishing coverage. In particular, the First District held that, although the insured may have been aware there was a risk that if it filled suspicious orders diversion of its product could contribute to the opioid epidemic; nevertheless, the mere knowledge of this fact was not sufficient to bar coverage under the policy’s “loss-in-progress” provision. Thus, the insurer was found to have a duty to defend its insured from the claims brought by the governmental entities.