State ex rel. Croston v. Alliance Castings Co.
2017 Ohio 6900
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Timothy Croston suffered a work injury that led to a below‑knee (right) amputation; BWC allowed the claim and issued a PPD award dated Nov. 14, 2013 for 150 weeks but also stated "100% AMPUTATION of the RIGHT LEG."
- Neither Croston nor his employer appealed the BWC order within the 14‑day appeal period, so the award became final.
- About 13 months later Croston asked the commission to invoke continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.52 and award an extra 50 weeks (to reach 200 weeks) arguing the BWC order contained a clerical/error (inconsistent) statement.
- BWC recommended denial, explaining the amputation point corresponds to loss of a foot (150 weeks) under R.C. 4123.57(B); the commission (DHO, SHO) denied relief, finding no basis to exercise continuing jurisdiction and noting the remedy for disagreement was a timely appeal.
- Croston sought reconsideration and then filed a mandamus action asking the court to order the commission to vacate its refusal and award the extra 50 weeks.
- The court (10th Dist.) reviewed the magistrate’s decision, overruled relator’s objections, found some evidence supported the commission’s determination (below‑knee amputation → 150 weeks), and denied the writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by refusing to exercise continuing jurisdiction to correct an alleged clerical/error in the BWC order | Croston: BWC’s order inconsistently labeled a below‑knee amputation as "100% amputation of the right leg," so commission should correct the mistake and award an additional 50 weeks | Commission/BWC: The surgical report shows a below‑knee amputation (loss of foot/150 weeks); no timely appeal was filed; continuing jurisdiction is extraordinary and not warranted | Held: No abuse of discretion; commission properly declined to invoke continuing jurisdiction because record supported the 150‑week award and relator failed to show a clear mistake warranting modification |
| Whether Croston sustained a 100% loss of the entire right leg (entitling him to 200 weeks) | Croston: The BWC’s language finding 100% amputation of the right leg establishes entitlement to 200 weeks | Commission: Medical/surgical report indicates below‑knee amputation (not entire leg); statutory schedule provides 150 weeks for loss of a foot | Held: Court found some evidence supports commission’s factual determination that amputation was below the knee (not entire leg); no basis for mandamus |
| Whether a timely appeal is required to challenge BWC order or whether R.C. 4123.52 can be used as substitute remedy | Croston: sought correction under R.C. 4123.52 instead of timely appeal | Commission: R.C. 4123.52 is extraordinary; res judicata bars changing a final order absent statutory basis (e.g., clerical error, fraud, new evidence) | Held: R.C. 4123.52 relief denied—relator’s failure to timely appeal precluded relief because he did not meet standards for continuing jurisdiction |
| Standard for mandamus review of commission action | Croston: commission’s refusal to act was arbitrary given the inconsistent language in BWC order | Commission: commission’s decision must be upheld if supported by some evidence; credibility and weight are for commission | Held: Mandamus denied because commission’s decision was supported by some evidence and thus not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (mandamus elements and commission duty)
- State ex rel. B & C Machine Co. v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio St.3d 538 (limits and grounds for commission continuing jurisdiction)
- Swallow v. Indus. Comm., 36 Ohio St.3d 55 (deference to administrative interpretation of statutes)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (mandamus and "some evidence" standard)
- State ex rel. Nicholls v. Indus. Comm., 81 Ohio St.3d 454 (res judicata and finality of BWC orders)