Akron attorney sanctioned again by Ohio Supreme Court
National News
Akron attorney Edward P. Markovich, who is already serving a suspension has been sanctioned again by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The state Supreme Court today suspended Markovich, 53, from the practice of law for one-year, citing multiple violations of state attorney rules.
The court, following the recommendation of it's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline voted 5-2, to sanction Markovich for one-year with six months stayed. The board found Markovich had committed professional misconduct involving seven different cases.
In January, the Supreme Court placed Markovich on a one-year interim suspension, with six-months stayed, stemming from additional new charges of misconduct, including fraud and corrupt activity. That suspension went into effective immediately at the time, prior to a board hearing being held because of the previous complaints against Markovich. The court's decision today were based on charges filed in October, 2007.
Jonathan W. Marshall, secretary of the court's grievances and discipline board, said that today's decision will be in addition to Markovich's January sanction. The court has yet to make a ruling on the latest charges.
Both complaints against Markovich were filed by the Akron Bar Association.
Related listings
-
Getty Images and Stability AI clash in UK copyright trial testing AI's future
National News 06/15/2025Getty Images is facing off against artificial intelligence company Stability AI in a London courtroom for the first major copyright trial of the generative AI industry.Opening arguments before a judge at the British High Court began on Monday. The tr...
-
Appeals court allows Trump’s anti-union order to take effect
National News 05/25/2025An appeals court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees while a lawsuit plays out.The Friday ruling came after the Trump admin...
-
Chief Justice Roberts Rejects Trump’s Call for Judicial Impeachment
National News 03/19/2025In an extraordinary display of conflict between the executive and judiciary branches, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected calls for impeaching judges Tuesday, shortly after President Donald Trump demanded the removal of one who ruled against his depo...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.