 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel. Hart v. Beverage Transp.8/23/1995
Per Curiam.
At issue is the following commission policy:
"All permanent total disability cases remanded from court to the Commission where a limited or alternative writ of mandamus is granted directing the Industrial Commission to vacate its prior order and proceed to issue a new order in compliance with Noll * * * will be set for hearing before Staff Hearing Officers who will sit as Deputies of the Industrial Commission under [former] Section 4121.03 of the Ohio Revised Code.
"At the conclusion of the hearing, no oral decision will be announced from the bench. Instead, if the Deputies' recommended order is consistent with the prior decision of the Commission on permanent and total disability compensation, asorder that meets Noll will be forwarded to the Industrial Commission members for approval and confirmation.
"On the other hand, in the case where the Deputies of the Commission believe the merits of a case call for a decision opposite from that originally issued by the members of the Industrial Commission, an order would issue only notifying the parties that 'after consideration of the issue, the matter will be scheduled for hearing before the members of the Industrial Commission.' In such an instance, there would be no decision rendered on the merits of the case by the Deputies. The Staff Hearing Officers sitting as Deputies would be responsible for preparing a statement of facts for a hearing that will be scheduled before the members of the Industrial Commission."
Claimant decries the lack of a formal hearing before the commission itself. Claimant's remanded permanent total disability application, however, was given a formal oral hearing. Two staff hearing officers, acting on behalf of the commission, entertained the matter on February 27, 1992, and drafted a detailed order that the commission, upon review, adopted it as its own.
Claimant asserts that by permitting staff hearing officers to hear his application for permanent total disability on remand, the commission violated the appellate court's directive that the commission reconsider the issue. We disagree.
Contrary to claimant's representation, effective commission consideration does not require the commission literally to hear the matter. It is only necessary that "the decision-maker must, in some meaningful manner, consider evidence obtained at hearing." (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Ormet Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 102, 107, 561 N.E.2d 920, 925. Ormet discussed, extensively and approvingly, the use of subordinates in the administrative process. Quoting Morgan v. United States (1936), 298 U.S. 468, 481-482, 56 S.Ct. 906, 912, 80 L.Ed. 1288, 1295, we noted:
"'This necessary rule does not preclude practicable administrative procedure in obtaining the aid of assistants in the department. Assistants may prosecute inquiries. Evidence may be taken by an examiner. Evidence thus taken may be sifted and analyzed by competent subordinates. Argument may be oral or written. The requirements are not technical. But there must be a hearing in a substantial sense. And to give the substance of hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence, the officer who makes the determination must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them. * * *' (Emphasis added.) * * *" Ormet, 54 Ohio St.3d at 104, 561 N.E.2d at 923.
Ormet also recited a passage from Davis' Administrative Law (1958) 44-45, Section 11.03, in which the author observed:
"'According to the opinion in the leading irst Morgan case, the requirement is not that deciding officers must personally
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|