 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Interstate Brands Corp. v. Conrad9/2/2004
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
. Relator, Interstate Brands Corporation, filed this original action in mandamus. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the matter was referred to a magistrate of this court. On May 28, 2004, the magistrate rendered a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and therein recommended that this court grant the writ. (Attached as Appendix A.) Respondents, Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation and its Self-Insured Review Panel, timely filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which are now before the court.
.As respondents acknowledged in their objections, the facts of this case fit squarely within this court's decision in State ex rel. Kokosing Constr. Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1252, 2003-Ohio-4894, the facts and holding of which were set forth and relied upon by the magistrate in the present case. Respondents' objections are based wholly on their contention that Kokosing was wrongly decided.
.Since the filing of respondents' objections and relator's memorandum in response to same, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously affirmed this court's Kokosing decision. See State ex rel. Kokosing Constr. Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 102 Ohio St.3d 429, 2004-Ohio-3664, 811 N.E.2d 1134. Therein, the court affirmed our holding that a self-insured employer who initially certifies a claim, but later obtains an administrative declaration that the claim was fraudulent and the award and payment of compensation should never have occurred, has satisfied the requirements of R.C. 4123.512(H) and State ex rel. Sysco Food Serv. Of Cleveland, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 612, 734 N.E.2d 361, such that the employer is entitled to reimbursement from the state surplus fund.
.Accordingly, after an examination of the magistrate's decision, an independent review pursuant to Civ.R. 53, due consideration of respondents' objections, and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State ex rel. Kokosing Constr. Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 102 Ohio St.3d 429, 2004-Ohio-3664, 811 N.E.2d 1134, we overrule the objections and find that the magistrate correctly and appropriately determined the issues raised. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, and grant relator's request for a writ of mandamus.
Objections overruled; writ of mandamus granted.
PETREE and BROWN, JJ., concur.
APPENDIX A
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on May 28, 2004
IN MANDAMUS
.In this original action, relator, Interstate Brands Corporation, requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation to vacate his decision denying relator's request for surplus fund reimbursement in the industrial claim of David M. Brown ("Brown") and to enter a decision granting relator surplus fund reimbursement. Findings of Fact:
.1. Brown filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that he sustained an industrial injury on November 27, 2000, while employed with relator, a self-insured employer under Ohio's workers' compensation laws. Brown alleged that he twisted his back when his foot slipped from under him while inside a truck.
.2. Two days after the alleged injury, on November 29, 2000, Brown was interviewed by the third-party administrator for relator's self-insurance program. The interview was recorded and later
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|