From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 12, 1978
54 Ohio St. 2d 39 (Ohio 1978)

Summary

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.

Summary of this case from State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm

Opinion

No. 76-1332

Decided April 12, 1978.

Workers' compensation — Payment of compensation by self-insurer — Entitled to reimbursement from state, when — Mandamus proper remedy.

IN MANDAMUS.

Mary Rafferty (claimant) was injured in an industrial accident in 1968, while in the employ of Weather Seal Division, Georgia Pacific Corporation, which resulted in the amputation of several fingers. Her claim was allowed by the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation (claim No. 68-26660) and she received disability and medical benefits thereunder.

On January 1, 1969, her employer elected to become a self-insurer for workmen's compensation purposes pursuant to R.C. 4123.35, and when Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, relator herein, succeeded Georgia Pacific, it continued this status.

In October 1971, Mary Rafferty alleged that an injury to her right arm and shoulder had occurred on February 12, 1971, and she filed a claim therefor (claim No. 490610-22). Relator recognized this claim as valid and, as a self-insurer, commenced paying claimant temporary total disability compensation. On November 6, 1972, relator wrote the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, requesting that the claim be "reviewed to determine if the liability of our self-insured Claim No. 490610-22 should not in fact be the liability of the State Claim No. 68-26660." In February 1973, the bureau disallowed the claim in case No. 490610-22, but prior to the disallowance thereof, relator had paid claimant compensation and medical payments in the amount of $6,052.53. The Industrial Commission on April 23, 1974, in both claims, denied relator's motions for reimbursement for compensation paid in claim No. 490610-22.

On December 17, 1974, the Industrial Commission in claim No. 68-26660 declared claimant to be permanently and totally disabled and ordered "[t]hat the total cost of this award be charged to Claim No. 68-26660." Also, on that date, the commission ordered in claim No. 490610-22 that "[c]laimant [is] found to be permanently and totally disabled because of injuries covered by Claim No. 68-26660."

In September 1976, the commission in both claims again denied relator's request for reimbursement for compensation paid in claim No. 490610-22.

Relator thereafter, on December 16, 1976, filed this action in mandamus to compel respondent Industrial Commission to order that relator be reimbursed $6,052.53, representing the amount of compensation and payments paid claimant by relator as a self-insurer under claim No. 490610-22 which properly should have been paid from the state fund under claim No. 68-26660 pursuant to R.C. 4123.46.

Messrs. Roetzel Andress, Mr. Robert Carabell and Mr. William G. Trumpeter, for relator.

Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Gerald H. Waterman, for respondent Industrial Commission.


The issue to be resolved is whether a self-insurer under the workers' compensation law who continues to make compensation and medical payments while contesting the origin of a claim, and the injury for which benefits are being paid is determined to be attributable to an injury covered by the state fund, must be reimbursed by the state for such payments.

This court has upheld, in disparate circumstances, the right of an employer to seek reimbursement from the commission, and has recognized mandamus as a proper remedy to compel such reimbursement. State, ex rel. Lange, v. Indus. Comm. (1918), 98 Ohio St. 459; State, ex rel. Hunt Dorman Mfg. Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1923), 108 Ohio St. 139

It is undisputed that the injury for which benefits were paid by the employer in claim No. 490610-22 was determined to be due to the injuries covered by claim No. 68-26660 paid from the state fund. Therefore, relator having shown a clear legal right to the relief requested, the writ of mandamus is hereby allowed.

Writ allowed.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Apr 12, 1978
54 Ohio St. 2d 39 (Ohio 1978)

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.

Summary of this case from State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm
Case details for

State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP., v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Apr 12, 1978

Citations

54 Ohio St. 2d 39 (Ohio 1978)
374 N.E.2d 422

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm

This court has found a duty to reimburse in several cases similar to the case at bar. See State, ex rel.…

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Comm

In at least three earlier decisions this court has granted, by writ of mandamus, reimbursement from the…