McClosky v. Regal Mining, Inc.
78 Ohio St. 3d 171
Ohio
1997
Check Treatment

MCCLOSKY, APPELLANT, v. REGAL MINING, INC.; ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, ET AL., APPELLEES. THE STATE EX REL. TARR v. ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, ET AL.

Nos. 95-2635 and 96-304

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

April 16, 1997

78 Ohio St.3d 171 | 1997-Ohio-220

Workers’ compensation—R.C. 4123.512—Appeal to court of common pleas—Decision of Industrial Commission to deny compensation for additional condition requested subsequent to initial allowance of the claim is an appealable decision.

(Nos. 95-2635 and 96-304—Submitted March 4, 1997—Decided April 16, 1997.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Carroll County, No. 650.

IN MANDAMUS.

Cross & Rose Co., L.P.A., and Richard S. Dodson, Jr., for appellant in case No. 95-2635.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Simon B. Karas, Deputy Chief Counsel, and William A. Thorman III, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and Industrial Commission of Ohio in case No. 95-2635.

Joseph R. Compoli, Jr., and Mark S. Telich, for relator in case No. 96-304.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents in case No. 96-304.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals in case No. 95-2635 is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the authority of

.

{¶ 2} The complaint in mandamus in case No. 96-304 is dismissed because relator has an adequate legal remedy from the Industrial Commission‘s order by way of appeal to the court of common pleas. R.C. 4123.512;

.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.