|
Continuing
Jurisdiction Cases:
4123.522 Relief
(Supreme
Court)
To see the full text of a
case on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site, click on the case name. To
return to the Case Index, click here.
| LTV
Steel, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/5/00) |
| Employer sought relief
pursuant to R.C. 4123.522. Court held that employer was not entitled to
such relief because of evidence that employer had actual knowledge of
order. |
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
Miesse,
State ex rel. v. Holophane Corp. (4/28/04)
|
Letter notifying Commission that
attorney was acting as employer's
representative was sufficient notice to justify R.C. 4123.522 relief
when Commission failed to provide representative with notice of order.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
|
|
| Tisdale,
State ex rel. v. Cherry Hill Management, Inc. (5/17/00) |
| Injured worker sought relief
pursuant to R.C. 4123.522 because, although he received order, he did
not understand contents. Court holds R.C. 4123.522 only applies where
the order is not received. Because the injured worker received the
order, 4123.522 does not apply. |
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
| Walls,
State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/25/00) |
| Challenge to 4123.522 order is
properly brought in mandamus, not by 4123.512 appeal. Employer does not
have to provide individual notification of its representative in each
claim; Employer can tell Bureau one time who its representative is.
Where employer has done so, and employer's representative did not
receive order, employer was entitled to 4123.522 relief. |
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
