Summary
involving earlier litigation of the same case and noting the Mississippi insurer's repeated statements concerning its expectation of reimbursement
Summary of this case from Aetna Cas. Surety v. Mn. Assigned RiskOpinion
No. 84-798
Decided July 24, 1985.
Workers' compensation — Reimbursement sought for money paid to Ohio employee injured on job outside Ohio — Mandamus relief denied — Adequate remedy in Court of Claims.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
This action arose as a result of an industrial accident which occurred on January 12, 1979 in Clinton, Mississippi. John B. Houston, Jr., an Ohio resident, was working in the state of Mississippi for Caldwell Tanks, Inc., a Kentucky corporation. Houston fell from a scaffolding, was rendered a quadriplegic, and subsequently died.
Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, is Caldwell Tank's insurer in Mississippi. Since the accident occurred in Mississippi and immediate treatment was necessary, appellant began paying compensation and benefits to Houston according to Mississippi law.
Subsequently, Houston was transported back to Ohio where he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Houston's claim was disallowed by the district hearing officer and the order was affirmed by the regional board of review. In June 1980, appellee, the Industrial Commission of Ohio, reversed the board of review and ruled that Houston was entitled to Ohio benefits.
Several times during the pendency of Houston's Ohio claim appellant had informed appellee that if Houston were granted Ohio benefits, it would expect reimbursement for the amount it had paid. Appellee held a hearing to consider appellant's request for reimbursement. On January 4, 1982, appellee denied appellant's claim for reimbursement.
Appellant filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus ordering appellee to reimburse appellant for the $198,374.04 paid to Houston. The court of appeals sustained appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Appellant has also filed an action against the state in the Court of Claims (case No. 83-07199). The Court of Claims action has been stayed pending our decision in the case at bar.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease, Robert E. Tait and P. Douglas Barr, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Janet E. Jackson and Jeffrey W. Clark, for appellee.
The question on appeal is whether mandamus will issue to force appellee to reimburse appellant for money appellant paid to an Ohio employee injured on a job outside Ohio, when appellee has awarded the Ohio employee workers' compensation for that injury. To establish entitlement to a writ of mandamus appellant must establish three things: (1) that appellant has a clear legal right to the reimbursement, (2) that appellee is under a clear legal duty to reimburse, and (3) that appellant has no adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Halloran, v. Zapatony (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 73, 74.
Appellant has effectively demonstrated its clear legal right of action for reimbursement. It paid $198,374.04 in benefits to Houston as a result of his on-the-job injury. Appellee subsequently took responsibility for compensating Houston for that injury. Appellant should not be forced to pay a portion of appellee's now acknowledged debt to Houston merely because it was unclear immediately following the injury who would be responsible for compensating Houston.
The question of appellee's legal duty to reimburse is not so clear. No statute provides for the Industrial Commission to reimburse in the manner called for by this case. This court has found a duty to reimburse in several cases similar to the case at bar. See State, ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 39 [8 O.O.3d 35], and State, ex rel. Lange, v. Indus. Comm. (1918), 98 Ohio St. 459. Under a theory of unjust enrichment, appellee would be required to return the $198,374.04 that appellant advanced to Houston.
While Lange and Louisiana-Pacific provide that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel reimbursement, we find that there is an adequate remedy at law by way of an action for unjust enrichment in the Court of Claims. The Lange case was decided in 1918, long before the establishment of the Court of Claims in 1975. In Louisiana-Pacific, the claimant's injury, the Industrial Commission's award of benefits, and the commission's refusal to reimburse all occurred before the establishment of the Court of Claims. Thus, the legal remedy appropriate today was not available in those two cases and mandamus was proper. Today the Court of Claims regularly takes jurisdiction over, and decides, insurance subrogation suits against the state and its agents. In fact, appellant has filed an action in the Court of Claims which has been stayed pending the outcome of this case. Although appellant seems to have a legal right of action to reimbursement and appellee seems to have a legal duty to reimburse, the appropriate forum for determination on this matter is the Court of Claims. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., dissents.