[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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[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.