State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

143 N.E. 535, 110 Ohio St. 187

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1924

DocketNo. 18235

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 N.E. 535 (State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.) 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. v. Indus. Comm., 143 N.E. 535, 110 Ohio St. 187 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an original action in mandamus filed in this court praying that the Industrial Commission be ordered to make an award in favor of relator of an amount greater than that made by the Commission upon a hearing duly had before the Commission, from which no appeal was taken. It is claimed by relator that the injuries received by him resulted in the loss of his right arm, and relator further claims that the Commission so found, and so notified relator, but that the award is only in an amount sufficient to compensate him for the loss of a hand. The answer of the Commission alleges that the finding was that the relator had only suffered injuries resulting in the loss of the use of his right hand, and further alleges "that it will from time to time make such change or modification of any awards heretofore made according to the facts supported by the evidence placed before it or ascertained by *Page 188 it in connection with this said claim." Inasmuch as the Commission has continuing jurisdiction by virtue of Section 1465-86, General Code, this court is of the opinion that relator has an adequate remedy at law and that he should be remitted to a further hearing before the Commission under its continuing jurisdiction. The writ of mandamus will therefore be denied.

Writ denied.

MARSHALL, C.J., ROBINSON, JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

WANAMAKER, J., not participating.

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

This is an original action in mandamus filed in this court praying that the Industrial Commission be ordered to make an award in favor of relator of an amount greater than that made by the Commission upon a hearing duly had before the Commission, from which no appeal was taken. It is claimed by relator that the injuries received by him resulted in the loss of his right arm, and relator further claims that the Commission so found, and so notified relator, but that the award is only in an amount sufficient to compensate him for the loss of a hand. The answer of the Commission alleges that the finding was that the relator had only suffered injuries resulting in the loss of the use of his right hand, and further alleges "that it will from time to time make such change or modification of any awards heretofore made according to the facts supported by the evidence placed before it or ascertained by *Page 188 it in connection with this said claim." Inasmuch as the Commission has continuing jurisdiction by virtue of Section 1465-86, General Code, this court is of the opinion that relator has an adequate remedy at law and that he should be remitted to a further hearing before the Commission under its continuing jurisdiction. The writ of mandamus will therefore be denied.

Writ denied.

MARSHALL, C.J., ROBINSON, JONES, MATTHIAS, DAY and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

WANAMAKER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 N.E. 535, 110 Ohio St. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-v-indus-comm-ohio-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack