Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Casper v. McGraw Edison Service

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1989No. 88-1307PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

A commission order may be corrected by mandamus only where an abuse of discretion exists. State, ex rel. Hutton, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 9, 58 O.O. 2d 66, 278 N.E. 2d 34. Upon review, we find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s application for increased permanent partial disability compensation.

Under R.C. 4123.57(A), a district hearing officer makes an initial partial disability determination. If a claimant is dissatisfied, he or she may apply for reconsideration of the award within ten days of receiving the district hearing officer’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hutton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State ex rel. Basham v. Consolidation Coal Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Bouchonville v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1978

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Green v. CaseyOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State ex rel. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State Ex Rel. Ross v. Indus. Comm., 06ap-560 (5-3-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API