Mandamus Cases: Appeal or Mandamus (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Mandamus: Appeal or Mandamus

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.

Abex Corp./Electro Alloys Div., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/29/05)

Issue of employer liability is not before the court in an R.C. 4123.512 appeal, therefore employer which wants to challenge finding that it should be charged with claim is without an adequate remedy at law and is entitled to pursue mandamus relief on that issue.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge French
Appellate District: 10

Ellwood Engineering Casting Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/27/02)

Writ of mandamus will not issue to prevent Commission hearing to determine merits of death claim. There is an adequate remedy at law because ultimate decision (whether death was caused by work) can be appealed pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bowman
Appellate District: 10

Johnson, State ex rel. v. OSU Cancer Research Hosp. (8/13/15)

Because a Commission grant of continuing jurisdiction which ultimately results in denial of the right to participate can be challenged through an R.C. 4123.512 appeal it cannot be challenged in a mandamus action.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Horton
Appellate District: 10

Parks, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/19/04)

Commission’s decision that claim had been settled must be challenged by an R.C. 4123.512 appeal, not mandamus.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District: 10

Prestige Delivery Systems, Inc., State ex rel. v. Schroeder (6/26/03)

Decision to grant or deny R.C. 4123.522 relief must be challenged through mandamus action, not through an R.C. 4123.512 appeal.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge McCormac
Appellate District: 10

Romans, State ex rel. v. The Elder Beerman Stores Corp. (12/10/02)

Order which did only indicated that Commission had lost continuing jurisdiction to grant further compensation, but did not extinguish right to future medical payments, did not extinguish claim and was challengable in mandamus, rather than through appeal. Statute of limitations is procedural issue, therefore limitations provision as amended in 1993 applied even though worker had been injured in 1991.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District: 10

Young, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm., 2017-Ohio-8547 (11/2/17)

Where final decision in R.C. 4123.512 action determined that proper course of remedy is mandamus, injured worker can pursue mandamus action even though case would normally not be appropriate for mandamus because it involved the right to participate.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Tyack
Appellate District: 10