 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Sitterly v. Industrial Commission of Ohio6/27/2002
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN MANDAMUS
. Relator, Dennis Sitterly, commenced this original action requesting a writ of mandamus: (1) ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order which granted the request for reconsideration filed by respondent, Great Lakes Construction ("Great Lakes"), and remanded relator's application for permanent partial disability compensation to the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation; and (2) ordering the commission to issue a new order finding that relator is entitled to a permanent partial disability award of thirty percent.
. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision upon respondents' motions for summary judgment, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.) In her decision, the magistrate concluded that relator's mandamus action is premature because relator has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. The magistrate noted that the commission granted Great Lakes' request for reconsideration because it found a clear mistake of law, i.e., the Staff Hearing Officer's reliance upon a physician's report that took into account a non-allowed condition in determining the permanent partial disability award to relator. Consequently, the commission vacated the Staff Hearing Officer's order.
. After a review of the evidence presented to support relator's application for permanent partial disability compensation, the commission remanded relator's application to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation so that a proper medical examination of relator could occur. As relator then filed this mandamus action, the commission has made no definitive determination regarding relator's application. Because of this lack of a definitive determination, the magistrate concluded that relator has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies and, thus, granted respondents' motions for summary judgment.
. Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and reached the appropriate conclusion as dictated by law. We, however, rely upon slightly different legal reasoning in reaching the conclusion that summary judgment is appropriate.
. In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, relator must demonstrate that: (1) he has a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the acts requested; and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Stafford v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 76, 77-78. A court, however, will not issue a writ of mandamus if a relator fails to exhaust its available administrative remedies. Id.; State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 237, 237-238; State ex rel. Bailey v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 192; State ex rel. Reeves v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 212, 213.
. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies "applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course." United States v. Western Pacific R.R. Co. (1956), 352 U.S. 59, 63, 77 S.Ct. 161. See, also, Basic Distrib. Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 287, 290 (" he purpose of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to prevent premature interference with the administrative processes"). In summarizing the general policies pertaining to the doctrine of exhaustion of admi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|