Mandamus Cases: Appeal or Mandamus

(Supreme Court)

Click on the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the decision of a lower court or Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are excluded.

Bond, State ex rel. v. Velotta Co. (5/23/01)

Decisions to allow or disallow an additional condition must be challenged by an R.C. 4123.512 appeal, not through mandamus.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hinds, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/99)

Decisions affecting an injured worker's right to participate must be challenged through an R.C. 4123.512 appeal, not mandamus.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Liposchak, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/15/00)

Issues of dependency under R.C. 4123.59 and 4123.60 are not appealable to Court under R.C. 4123.512, but must be challenged by mandamus. Estate of injured worker is entitled to accrued but unpaid benefits.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Ross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/20/99)

Employer charged by Bureau with cost of claim claimed that it was not the employer. Because the employer had never contested the actual allowance, the Commission should never have considered the allowance. Issue of allowance was not properly before Commission and mandamus was appropriate remedy.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Ross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/29/98)

The Supreme Court granted reconisideration in this case. See the decision in State ex rel. Ross v. Indus. Comm. (1/20/99), discussed above.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Thomas v. Conrad (4/22/98)

Commission order which found that there was not an intervening injury (and therefore refused to terminate claim) could not be appealed to Court under R.C. 4123.512.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

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