State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Industrial Commission
142 Ohio St. 3d 524
| Ohio | 2015Background
- On Dec. 21, 2009 claimant Mustafa Alhamarshah filed a workers’ comp claim alleging injury while employed by Mohamed Salem (d.b.a. Ballmohd, LLC).
- The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation allowed the claim on Jan. 7, 2010 and notified parties they had 14 days to appeal.
- Salem (through a friend) faxed documents to the bureau appealing the allowance; the commission found the submission substantially complied with R.C. 4123.511(F) and treated it as a valid employer appeal.
- The matter was referred to a hearing officer, who disallowed the claim on the merits; the commission affirmed and Alhamarshah then appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 4123.512.
- Alhamarshah filed for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District arguing the commission abused its discretion in accepting Salem’s administrative appeal; the court of appeals denied the writ and the Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission abused discretion by accepting Salem’s appeal as a valid administrative notice | Alhamarshah: the appeal did not meet statutory/formal requirements and was invalid | Commission/Salem: the submission substantially complied with R.C. 4123.511(F) and claimant suffered no prejudice | Court: issue was reviewable on appeal to common pleas; mandamus unavailable because an adequate remedy at law existed |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to challenge the commission’s acceptance of the appeal | Alhamarshah: mandamus proper because commission’s allowance was an abuse of discretion | Commission: mandamus inappropriate because R.C. 4123.512 offers an adequate remedy by appeal | Court: lack of adequate remedy in ordinary course is prerequisite for mandamus; here appeal was adequate, so mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 276 (explaining appeals from commission orders to common pleas under R.C. 4123.512)
- Felty v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 65 Ohio St.3d 234 (employee entitlement decisions are appealable to common pleas)
- Afrates v. Lorain, 63 Ohio St.3d 22 (same principle that participation decisions are appealable)
- State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 18 Ohio St.3d 281 (mandamus unavailable when adequate legal remedy exists by appeal)
- State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler, 40 Ohio St.2d 1 (threshold requirement to consider adequacy of remedy before mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85 (mandamus relief requires lack of adequate ordinary legal remedy)