Mandamus Cases: Miscellaneous (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Mandamus: Miscellaneous

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.

Baja Marine Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/27/07)

Order which lacks clarity is returned to the Commission for further proceedings.

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

Baker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/1/15)

Because Commission has no jurisdiction over fee dispute between BWC and injured worker’s representative, and because there is no legal duty on BWC to pay attorney fee owed to injured worker’s representative as a result of work that representative did to obtain award which the BWC seized to recoup overpayment, mandamus is not an available remedy.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Booher, State ex rel. v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2/23/00)

Failure to file timely objections to Magistrate’s decision prevents challenging Magistrate’s findings on appeal.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Elyria Foundry Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/10/98)

Where employer was challenging allowance of claim, issue of entitlement to temporary total disability was not “ripe” for review.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

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

Where Industrial Commission improperly exercises continuing jurisdiction and a party is needlessly forced to relitigate, mandamus is available because the party has been adversely affected.

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

Kmart Corp., State ex rel. v. Frantom (9/15/99)

Interlocutory discovery order cannot be challenged by mandamus, because it is not a final order.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

McCullough, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/30/02)

Former pro football players challenge to provisions of R.C. 4123.56(C) should be brought in declaratory judgment, not mandamus.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Northfield Park Assoc., State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (6/23/99)

Bureau of Workers’ Compensation speaks on adversarial issues only through its orders, and is required to issue an order to resolve a disputed matter. A letter is not a sufficient ruling, and cannot be reviewed by mandamus.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

York Internat’l Corp., State ex rel. v. Kopis (9/19/07)

When Court of Appeals vacated permanent total order and remanded it to the Commission for further proceedings, Commission was not bound by prior order and was entitled to reexamine all issues involved.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam