State ex rel. Burnett v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Burnett v. Industrial Commission

452 N.E.2d 1341, 6 Ohio St. 3d 266, 6 Ohio B. 332, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 819

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 24, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1254

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 452 N.E.2d 1341 (State ex rel. Burnett v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Burnett v. Industrial Commission, 452 N.E.2d 1341, 6 Ohio St. 3d 266, 6 Ohio B. 332, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 819 (Ohio 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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. [268]*268Indus. Comm. (1962), 120 Ohio App. 374 [27 O.O.2d 304].” The court’s interpretation of Hall China was incorrect. That decision does not require a claimant to prove injurious exposure at the last place of employment. The court therein held that an injurious exposure was a prerequisite to the allowance of an occupational disease claim; and that proof of such exposure with the last employer was a sufficient basis for the award even though other employments may have contributed to the occupational disease.

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.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

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. [268]*268Indus. Comm. (1962), 120 Ohio App. 374 [27 O.O.2d 304].” The court’s interpretation of Hall China was incorrect. That decision does not require a claimant to prove injurious exposure at the last place of employment. The court therein held that an injurious exposure was a prerequisite to the allowance of an occupational disease claim; and that proof of such exposure with the last employer was a sufficient basis for the award even though other employments may have contributed to the occupational disease.

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.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 N.E.2d 1341, 6 Ohio St. 3d 266, 6 Ohio B. 332, 1983 Ohio LEXIS 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-burnett-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack