Opinion
No. 88-530
Submitted August 15, 1989 —
Decided October 25, 1989.
Workers' compensation — Mandamus to compel bureau to grant additional classifications — Writ not granted when declaratory judgment would provide a complete and therefore adequate remedy.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 86AP-605.
Appellant was incorporated as Viox Builders, Inc. in 1975. It was originally assigned Ohio Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund Manual ("manual") classification No. 5601 (building construction). Each manual classification has a corresponding premium rate determined by the Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("bureau"). Each rate is based on payroll and claim losses for that manual classification.
Prior to the events at bar, appellant had also received separate manual classification numbers for its landscaping, testing labs and clerical operations. In late 1983 it requested additional classifications for its masonry, plumbing, electrical, insulation/drywall, field work, and cabinetry operations. Pursuant to this request, the bureau performed a rating inspection and audit.
The audit report characterized the "[n]ature of the operation, according to industry pursued or product manufactured" as "[b]uilding remodeling, contract labor, time and material construction and wood cabinet manufacturing." It discussed the company's method of operation, employee make-up, products and services. The report recommended retention of the manual classifications previously assigned. It also recommended a separate cabinetry classification since appellant manufactured cabinets for sale to the general public as well as for its own use. The other requested classifications were not recommended.
The bureau adopted the report's recommendations in full. Appellant formally protested the denial of the other classifications to the bureau. The bureau posited that appellant was improperly "requesting permission to report payroll on an occupational basis rather than by industrial pursuit," and set the matter for hearing before its adjudicating committee. The committee affirmed the audit and the commission denied further appeal.
Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County alleging that the commission abused its discretion in refusing to grant additional classifications. The court, however, found that an action for a declaratory judgment was an adequate remedy at law and denied the writ.
This matter is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
G. Mitchell Lippert, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Merl H. Wayman, for appellees.
At issue is the commission's interpretation of the terms "occupations" and "industries" as used in R.C. 4123.29 (now 4123.29[A]). Because an action for declaratory judgment can fully resolve this question, we find that a plain and adequate remedy at law exists and thus affirm the appellate court's judgment.
To prevail in mandamus, relator must demonstrate that: (1) it has a clear right to the relief requested, (2) respondents are under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81. Under the declaratory judgment provisions of R.C. 2721.02:
"Courts of record may declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. * * * The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. Such declaration has the effect of a final judgment or decree."
In addition, R.C. 2721.03 provides that:
"Any person * * * whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitutional provision [or] statute * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under such * * * constitutional provision [or] * * * statute * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. * * *" "Person," as defined by R.C. 2721.01, includes a corporation.
We find that a declaratory judgment action encompasses the statutory question presented here. We are mindful of our previous decision in State, ex rel. Fenske, v. McGovern (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 129, 11 OBR 426, 464 N.E.2d 525, wherein we held that the availability of declaratory judgment does not per se preclude mandamus relief. However, unlike Fenske, declaratory judgment in this case would provide a complete and therefore adequate remedy.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.