State ex rel. Sanders v. Indus. Comm.
2016 Ohio 7704
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Thomas Sanders (decedent) injured left knee at work; claim initially allowed for left knee sprain and tibial plateau fracture and he received TTD through March 28, 2013 when SHO found MMI.
- Decedent later filed to add lateral tibial plateau chondromalacia and left knee hypertrophic fat pad synovitis; DHO denied, SHO allowed those additional conditions on Oct. 31, 2013.
- Employer (Wyandot) appealed the allowance to the Marion County Court of Common Pleas; decedent died March 6, 2014.
- Relator (surviving spouse) timely filed under R.C. 4123.60 on Oct. 9, 2014 seeking accrued TTD (Mar. 28, 2013–Mar. 6, 2014).
- On Oct. 28, 2014 the common pleas court entered an agreed dismissal stating that, because of the plaintiff’s death, decedent was not entitled to participate in the fund for the two additional conditions.
- The Commission (DHO then SHO) denied relator’s motion, relying on the trial-court dismissal; this mandamus seeks review of the Commission’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator has a clear right to accrued TTD under R.C. 4123.60 despite the employer’s appeal and subsequent trial-court dismissal | Sanders: At decedent's death the claim was allowed for the additional conditions and she timely filed; Commission should award accrued TTD and apply liberal construction in favor of dependents | Wyandot/Commission: The Marion County agreed dismissal determined decedent was not entitled to participate for those conditions; that judgment is "some evidence" supporting denial | Court: Denied writ — Commission decision was supported by some evidence (trial-court dismissal) and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the Commission abused discretion by treating the trial-court dismissal as dispositive of relator's separate R.C. 4123.60 claim | Sanders: The dismissal should not preclude relator's independent statutory claim; R.C. 4123.60 permits award to dependents for compensation decedent "might have received" | Commission: The dismissal was a valid, final judgment on the merits that the Commission could rely on when adjudicating relator's motion | Court: Rejected magistrate; treating the common pleas entry as some evidence was permissible; no mandamus relief |
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel effect of the agreed dismissal on relator's independent claim | Sanders: Relator is a separate party/claim under R.C. 4123.60; res judicata does not bar her claim | Wyandot: The common pleas judgment resolved entitlement for the conditions, precluding award | Court: Acknowledged relator's separate claim but held the Commission could rely on the trial-court determination as some evidence when denying the benefit |
| Proper temporal point for assessing entitlement (date of death vs. date of hearing) | Sanders: Entitlement should be assessed as of date of death (when claim was allowed) | Wyandot/Commission: Assessment may consider later-developed trial-court judgment deciding allowance after death | Court: Commission permissibly considered the common pleas dismissal entered before relator’s hearing and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (mandamus review limited to whether commission cited "some evidence")
- State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (commission must cite some evidence and explain rationale in mandamus review)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (mandamus available where commission decision is unsupported by any evidence)
- State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the commission)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (three requirements for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus as remedy from commission determinations)
- Altvater v. Claycraft Co., 71 Ohio App.3d 264 (10th Dist. 1991) (res judicata/collateral estoppel require identity of parties and issues; surviving spouse's separate claim may not be barred)
- Whitehead v. Genl. Tel. Co., 20 Ohio St.2d 108 (1969) (res judicata requires identity of parties and issues)
- Beatrice Foods Co. v. Lindley, 70 Ohio St.2d 29 (1982) (same principle for application of res judicata)