Mandamus Cases: Appeal or Mandamus (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

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.

Alhamarshah, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/9/15)

Commission decision that employer’s administrative appeal substantially complied with statutory requirements for notice of appeal was essential part of Commission’s ultimate decision to deny claim; therefore, issue of whether Commission properly decided to permit appeal became part of allowance issue and can only be challenged by R.C. 4123.512 appeal, not mandamus.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

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

Carroll, State ex rel. v. Galion Assisted Living, Ltd. (12/14/16)

Because Commission order denying claim can be appealed under R.C. 4123.512 it cannot be challenged by a mandamus action.

Vote: 7-0
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