 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Menough v. Industrial Commission of Ohio6/25/2002
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
. Relator, James Menough, has filed this original action challenging orders issued by respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") pursuant to R.C. 4123.52, in which the commission terminated prior awards of compensation for permanent total disability ("PTD") and temporary total disability ("TTD") and also declared overpayments of PTD compensation, TTD compensation, and payments from the Disabled Workers Relief Fund ("DWRF"). Relator also challenged a commission order denying his appeal of a determination by the Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") that relator must reimburse the state for overpayments received due to fraud.
. The matter was referred to a magistrate of this court pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C) and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.) Therein, the magistrate concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion in terminating the prior awards of PTD and TTD compensation, in declaring overpayments of PTD and TTD compensation and DWRF payments, in finding that relator's receipt of these benefits was fraudulent, and in concluding that BWC may recover the overpayments from relator. However, the magistrate took issue with that portion of the commission's order directing BWC to collect the overpayments "pursuant to the fraud provision contained in R.C. 4123.511(J)." The magistrate found that the commission's citation to R.C. 4123.511(J) was contrary to law because that statute was not in effect at the time the compensation was awarded. The magistrate further noted, however, that recovery of overpayments resulting from relator's fraud was appropriate under the law set forth in State ex rel. RMI Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), Franklin App. No. 98AP-639, and State ex rel. Martin v. Connor (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 213. The magistrate recommended that this court issue a limited writ of mandamus ordering the commission to amend the orders at issue to delete its reference to R.C. 4123.511(J).
. The commission has filed objections to the magistrate's decision, arguing that the issuance of a limited writ compelling the commission to correct its citation to R.C. 4123.511(J) is unnecessary, as such action would not change the result of the proceedings. The matter is now before this court for a full, independent review.
. In State ex rel. Carter v. Penske Truck Leasing , Inc. (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 208, the commission denied claimant's motion for reconsideration on the basis that the request did not satisfy a particular commission resolution. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the commission's citation to an improper authority did not constitute a basis for granting mandamus relief because the result of the proceeding would be the same if the correct legal authority had been cited and considered. Specifically, the court stated:
* ny order to the commission to further consider appellant's claim would be a vain act, since the same result would be inevitable. See State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 210, 616 N.E. 2d 929. [Id. at 209.]
. In the instant action, case law supports the commission's determination that relator was required to fully repay all compensation obtained due to the fraud he perpetrated against BWC. Pursuant to Carter, since there is legal authority that fully supports the commission's determination, any order requiring the commission to correct its citation to R.C. 4123.511(J) would be a "vain act," since the same result would be inevitable.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|