Opinion
Nos. 84-1746 and 84-1747
Decided July 10, 1985.
Workers' compensation — Administrative appeal is adequate remedy at law.
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Case No. 84-1746On October 14, 1979, Ralph Bryant, an employee of relator-appellant, Harshaw Chemical Company, sustained chemical burns to the index, middle, and ring fingers of his left hand while working within the scope of his employment. On October 23, 1979, a surgical amputation of Bryant's index and ring fingers was performed as a result of the burns.
Thereafter, on October 26, 1979, relator certified a form "C-50" application pertaining to Bryant's October 14, 1979 injury and filed this form with respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Relator proceeded to compensate Bryant for the loss of his first and third fingers. On or about May 19, 1980, Bryant returned to work with relator.
On September 24, 1981, Bryant filed a motion with respondent requesting that he be awarded compensation for the total loss of his left hand pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(C). On January 13, 1982, a hearing was held on Bryant's motion before a district hearing officer. At the conclusion of the hearing the district hearing officer orally granted Bryant's motion and on January 29, 1982, issued a written decision ordering that Bryant "be compensated for the loss of the whole hand (left) (175 weeks) pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(C) less the compensation (55 weeks) claimant has already received for the loss of the first and third fingers."
The employer acknowledges this fact in paragraph 12 in the complaint for mandamus. However, in the brief filed with this court, Harshaw Chemical alleges that the September 24, 1981 motion only sought an allowance of the injury which had already been accepted by the employer. It is further alleged that Bryant's counsel orally moved to amend the motion in order to permit compensation for the total loss of the left hand during the hearing before the district hearing officer.
On February 16, 1982, relator filed a motion with the Industrial Commission requesting that the district hearing officer provide the parties with written findings of fact and additional reasoning necessary to establish the basis for granting Bryant's September 24, 1981 motion. This motion was not addressed until February 3, 1983, at which time it was dismissed by John Roach, then Chief Hearing Officer for the Industrial Commission.
In the meantime, relator timely appealed the decision of the district hearing officer to the regional board of review.
On May 6, 1983, relator filed the within action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County seeking to compel respondent Industrial Commission to vacate the January 29, 1982 decision of the district hearing officer, or, in the alternative, to direct the hearing officer to redetermine the issues and to submit sufficient findings of fact and reasons for his decision. While this matter was under review in the appellate court, relator sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the regional board of review from holding any further administrative hearings on the claim in question. Appellant's motion was denied, as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration. On August 17, 1983, the regional board of review affirmed the hearing officer's decision.
On September 9, 1983, relator appealed to the Industrial Commission. The commission has yet to rule on this appeal since the claim file in that matter has been filed as evidence in the case sub judice.
Finally, on September 20, 1984, the court of appeals denied relator's writ of mandamus on the grounds that relator had available an adequate remedy at law in the form of the pending administrative appeal before the Industrial Commission.
Case No. 84-1747Robert Richard Kent Weaver was employed by relator-appellant, Eaton Corporation, in several different capacities at various times. At the time of his death, Weaver had been transferred from a position as an accounting manager at Kings Mountain, North Carolina, to assistant controller at Eaton's Cleveland facility. While in Cleveland, Weaver lived at various motels, the costs of which were paid by him and reimbursed by relator.
On June 18, 1981, Weaver failed to report for work, and was later found dead in his room at the Sheraton Motor Inn at Brook Park, Ohio. An autopsy showed that Weaver had died from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Deborah Weaver, widow of the decedent, filed an application on June 9, 1982, for death benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. After relator was given notice of the claim, it advised the Bureau of Workers' Compensation that it did not accept the claim as valid.
A hearing on the claim was held on February 1, 1983, before a district hearing officer. During the hearing, relator's attorney formally requested that the hearing officer, pursuant to R.C. 4123.515, set forth in writing her findings of fact and supporting rationale to provide a basis for her decision. On or about February 17, 1983, the hearing officer issued an order allowing Weaver's claim.
On April 1, 1983, relator appealed the hearing officer's decision to the regional board of review. Thereafter, on May 31, 1983, relator instituted the within action in mandamus, seeking to compel respondent Industrial Commission to vacate the February 17, 1983 order of the district hearing officer or, in the alternative, direct the hearing officer to redetermine the issues and to provide findings of facts and reasons for her ruling.
On May 25, 1983, relator was notified of the pending hearing of its appeal before the regional board of review. Relator has since obtained a continuance in this action, and the matter has yet to be reset for hearing.
On September 20, 1984, the court of appeals denied relator's writ on the grounds that relator possessed an adequate remedy at law in the form of the pending administrative appeal before the Cleveland Regional Board of Review.
The causes are now before this court upon appeals as of right, having been consolidated for argument and review.
Willacy Lopresti, Aubrey B. Willacy and Timothy A. Marcovy, for appellants Harshaw Chemical Co. and Eaton Corp.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Michael L. Squillace and Janet E. Jackson, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Joseph Zito, for appellee Deborah Weaver in case No. 84-1747.
The primary issue before this court is whether the availability of an administrative appeal within the Industrial Commission constitutes an adequate remedy at law.
The appellants attack the adequacy of the administrative remedies on several grounds. First, it is asserted that both the Industrial Commission and the regional board of review lack the authority to remand the appealled claims to the respective district hearing officers to supply the allegedly deficient findings and rationale. As a result, it is contended that the available administrative remedies are unable to provide the relief sought in the mandamus actions.
In an appeal to the regional board of review or the Industrial Commission, the parties are afforded the opportunity to present the testimony of witnesses and other evidence. R.C. 4123.518. This review relates to the original allowance of the claim and whether it is cognizable under the workers' compensation statutes in the first instance. State, ex rel. Eltra Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 96, 99 [65 O.O.2d 245]. Further, both of these administrative bodies must specify the evidence on which a decision is based and must briefly explain a decision as to benefits. State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481.
In light of the nature of the proceedings before these administrative bodies, it becomes apparent that if the appellants were to pursue the presently pending administrative appeals, they would have the opportunity to challenge the district hearing officers' orders on the basis that they were not supported by the allegedly requisite findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, the pending administrative appeals constitute adequate remedies whereby appellants could either seek to have the district hearing officers' decisions overturned, or secure an "adequate" findings of fact and supporting rationale to justify the reviewing body's decision.
In both of the actions at bar, appellants seek the award of attorney fees. In view of our upholding of the appellate court's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the available administrative appeals, we find appellants' prayers for attorney fees to be unwarranted.
In case No. 84-1746, appellant Harshaw Chemical raises a number of additional propositions of law. First, it is argued that the appeal before the Industrial Commission is an inadequate remedy on the grounds that the Industrial Commission has already ruled adversely on appellant's right to a statement of findings of fact and legal reasons underlying the district hearing officer's decision. This was allegedly accomplished when John Roach, then Chief Hearing Officer for the Industrial Commission, dismissed appellant's February 16, 1982 motion.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Appellant's February 16 motion was brought before the commission pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 4121-3-16(B). This rule specifically provides that "[i]n no event should a motion be used as a substitute for an appeal * * *." Hence, the Chief Hearing Officer's ruling on relator's motion is not res judicata as to the Industrial Commission's review of Harshaw Chemical's appeal. Although Roach was an employee of the commission, his order did not supersede those of the commission, nor did it divest the commission's jurisdiction to hear the employer's appeal.
Next, it is asserted that the court of appeals wrongfully denied appellant's request for an order enjoining the regional board of review from hearing the employer's pending appeal. This is a moot issue. The hearing which appellant sought to enjoin has been completed. It is impossible for this court to render any relief under these circumstances. Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237.
Finally, appellant charges that the hearing before the district hearing officer constituted a denial of due process. This argument has no bearing on the issue presently before this court, i.e., whether appellant has an available adequate remedy at law. This final argument would be more appropriately brought before the Industrial Commission in the employer's pending appeal.
In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, relators must establish: (1) that they have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) that respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the requested acts; and (3) that relators have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Westchester, v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42 [15 O.O.3d 53], paragraph one of the syllabus. We find that appellants have available an adequate remedy in the form of administrative appeals. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the court of appeals in case Nos. 84-1746 and 84-1747.
Judgment affirmed in case No. 84-1746.
Judgment affirmed in case No. 84-1747.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.