6 Ohio St. 3d 266 | Ohio | 1983
The court of appeals denied the writ for the reason that “* * * there is no evidence showing that he [Burnett] was exposed to causative factors while employed by respondent, Peck-Hannaford & Briggs Co., his last employer, as required by State, ex rel. The Hall China Co., v.
Though the basis for the court of appeals’ decision was erroneous, it is well-recognized that mandamus does not lie where the relator has an adequate remedy at law. R.C. 2731.05; State, ex rel. Cleveland, v. Calandra (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 121, 123 [16 O.O.3d 143]; State, ex rel. Benton, v. C. & So. O. Elec. Co. (1968), 14 Ohio St. 2d 130, 132 [43 O.O.2d 238].
The order complained of herein involves appellant’s right to participate in the fund and is thus appealable under R.C. 4123.519. Currently pending are two appeals pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, wherein all of the issues raised herein can be adjudicated. Appellant’s concern that the failure to name the appropriate employer will defeat her appeal is unfounded. The right at issue in the appeal is the right to participate in the state fund and not a claim directed against a particular employer. The appeal proceeding is a trial de novo and the Civil Rules apply. By discovery and joinder, the proper employers can be ascertained and made parties, if necessary.
For the reason that appellant has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ requested.
Judgment affirmed.
