Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Ross v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1999No. 96-2388PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

For the following reasons, we grant appellant’s motion for reconsideration and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

One issue is presented: Does claimant have an adequate remedy at law via an R.C. 4123.512 appeal? We find that she does not, and that mandamus is appropriate.

In Afrates v. Lorain (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 584 N.E.2d 1175, this court set forth the parameters of when an appeal to the common pleas court pursuant to R.C. 4123.512 is appropriate. The court held that only decisions involving a claimant’s right to participate in the fund could be appealed. The question in this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Afrates v. City of LorainOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State ex rel. Burnett v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State ex rel. Ross v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Liposchak v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Village of Oakwood v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API