2022 Ohio 2062
Ohio2022Background
- Josue Morales, an auto-body technician, was injured at work (2014) and was awarded a VSSR additional-compensation award by the Industrial Commission (50% of the maximum weekly rate). Target Auto Repair (self-insured employer) sought reconsideration, which the commission denied.
- Target filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District asking the court to vacate the VSSR award. The magistrate recommended denying the writ.
- Target’s counsel mistakenly filed its objections in a different (closed) case; the Tenth District believed no objections had been filed, independently reviewed the record, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and on Aug. 20, 2019 denied the writ.
- Target filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief but also filed a notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court on Oct. 3, 2019; the appeal divested the Tenth District of jurisdiction to rule on the 60(B) motion, rendering later Tenth District entries (vacating and then re-adopting the magistrate’s decision) invalid.
- The Ohio Supreme Court limited its review to the Aug. 20, 2019 judgment and affirmed because Target failed to timely object to the magistrate’s findings and therefore could not raise those matters on appeal (no plain-error showing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Target may appeal the court of appeals’ adoption of magistrate findings it failed to timely object to under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) | Target says clerical misfiling excused failure to timely object and it reasserts those objections here to preserve rights | Commission says rule precludes assigning error on adoption of magistrate findings unless timely objected to (except plain error) | Target may not raise those arguments on appeal because it failed to timely object; appeal affirmed |
| Whether the Tenth District could rule on Target’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion after Target filed a notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court | Target relied on the Tenth District’s later journal entry granting 60(B) and vacating the Aug. 20 judgment | Commission cites the rule that an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on Civ.R. 60(B) motions | Appeal to the Supreme Court divested the Tenth District of jurisdiction; its subsequent entries were invalid; only the Aug. 20 judgment is before this Court |
| Whether plain error saves Target’s unpreserved objections | Target implicitly requests preservation of objections and suggests error | Commission says plain-error doctrine is disfavored and not met here | Plain-error exception not shown (no exceptional circumstances); arguments barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Catholic Social Servs. of Cuyahoga Cty., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction to consider Civ.R. 60(B) motion)
- State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee, 84 Ohio St.3d 54 (1998) (same principle applied in mandamus context)
- State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52 (2000) (party cannot rely on magistrate conclusions it failed to timely object to)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)
- Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 161 Ohio St.3d 337 (2020) (reaffirming narrow application of plain-error doctrine in civil cases)