Continuing Jurisdiction Cases: Unspecified Error (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Continuing Jurisdiction: Unspecified Error

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Chaffins, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/1/98)

Possibility of unspecified error does not justify Commission decision to grant reconsideration.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Foster, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/14/99)

Industrial Commission could not exercise continuing jurisdiction where it fails to identify a proper basis for reconsideration.

Vote: 4-2, 1 prohibition only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Nicholls, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/22/98)

Possibility of unspecified error does not justify Commission decision to grant reconsideration.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Royal, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/24/02)

Continuing jurisdiction improperly applied where order merely found possibility of error. Neither identification of error in later order nor the motion for reconsideration setting forth the reason the challenging party thought reconsideration was justified justifies reconsideration in such a situation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam