State ex rel. Goff v. Industrial Commission

{¶ 6} I agree that Super Lube has waived the arguments contained in its objections because it failed to raise them before the magistrate. State ex rel. Hackenburg v. Indus. Comm., Franklin App. No. 06AP-938, 2007-Ohio-4181, 2007 WL 2327105, ¶ 4. Thus, I, too, would overrule them. However, because I perceive error on the face of the magistrate’s decision, I would reject its legal conclusions, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 7} The September 13, 2005 termination letter advised relator that a work order “had [his] signature and a date as having received…