Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Colliver v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1999No. 95-1792PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundber'g Stratton, J.

The issue before this court is whether the commission abused its discretion when it denied claimant’s application for an additional award for a VSSR. For the following reasons, we determine that the commission did not abuse its discretion. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the claimant’s request for a writ of mandamus.

The commission has exclusive authority to “hear and determine whether or not an injury, disease or death resulted because of the failure of the employer to comply with any specific requirement for the protection of the lives, health or *478safety of employees *…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. v. LancasterOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Brown v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State ex rel. Fiber-Lite Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Ohio Mushroom Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Devore Roofing & Painting v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State ex rel. Arce v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State ex rel. McVay v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Colliver v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State ex rel. Liberty Steel Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024

1 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