Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Murray v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1992No. Nos. 90-657 and 91-42PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

Two questions are now before us: (1) Does claimant have an adequate remedy at law, thus precluding mandamus relief? and (2) Can a claimant concurrently receive PPD and PTD for the same injury? For the following reasons, we answer both questions in the negative.

We preliminarily reject the contention of appellee Consolidation Coal Company that an appeal to the court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.519 provides an adequate remedy at law. A claimant’s ability or inability to concurrently receive PPD and PTD for the same condition does not involve claimant’s right to participate in the State…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Afrates v. City of LorainOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State ex rel. Latino v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Brannon v. Tampa TribuneDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Hoskins v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Howard University Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API