State ex rel. Johnson v. OSU Cancer Research Hosp.
2015 Ohio 3249
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Relator Johnson sustained a work injury in 2010; claim allowed for lumbosacral sprain (physical condition).
- Relator filed a C-86 motion in 2013 to additionally allow major depression, single episode, non-psychotic, severe.
- Staff Hearing Officer granted the psychological condition; OSU attempted to appeal but commission refused.
- OSU obtained reconsideration; the commission vacated the SHO order, citing a clear mistake of law and scheduled a hearing.
- Magistrate concluded no abuse of continuing jurisdiction; OSU objected to adequacy of remedy at law; court later sustained OSU’s objection and denied mandamus.
- Court held the continuing-jurisdiction decision was a decision on the right to participate, making mandamus improper because an adequate remedy at law exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mandamus proper given an adequate remedy at law? | Johnson argues mandamus is proper to challenge continuing jurisdiction. | OSU contends remedy under RC 4123.512 exists via common-pleas appeal. | Not proper; adequate remedy exists. |
| Did the commission's continuing-jurisdiction decision determine Johnson's right to participate? | Johnson asserts it did determine participation. | OSU contends it did not determine participation permitting direct mandamus. | Yes, it determined participation under RC 4123.512. |
| Did the commission abuse its discretion in exercising continuing jurisdiction? | Johnson argues there was a mistake warranting relief. | OSU argues the decision was proper based on the record. | No abuse; decision sustained. |
| Was the psychological condition sufficiently related to the allowed physical condition to justify additional allowance? | Dr. Drown linked depression to the injury; relation supported. | Dr. Clary found no relation to the injury; evidence insufficient. | Not sufficiently proven; relation not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 276 (2000) (adequate remedy under RC 4123.512 for certain orders)
- State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 524 (2015-Ohio-1357) (continuing-jurisdiction decisions affecting participation are reviewable in mandamus)
- Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58 (2013-Ohio-2237) (requires showing psychological condition related to injury when considering added disability)
- State ex rel. B & C Machine Co. v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio St.3d 538 (1992) (continuing jurisdiction is limited by statute and case law)