State ex rel. Baker v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.

6 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 1983) · Supreme Court of Ohio · July 13, 1983

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the Industrial Commission retains jurisdiction when it grants a motion for reconsideration within the sixty-day appeal period, even if the underlying order is not vacated during that period. The court reversed the court of appeals and allowed a writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to proceed with the claimant’s case.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Celebrezze, C.J.; W. Brown, J.; Sweeney, J.; Locher, J.; Holmes, J.; C. Brown, J.; J. P. Celebrezze, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 13, 1983
Procedural posture
Baker sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Industrial Commission to proceed with his workers' compensation case. The court of appeals denied relief, and Baker appealed.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
State ex rel. Baker v. Dayton Malleable, Inc., Industrial Commission
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationjudicial review of agency actionappellate procedureremedies

Practice areas

Administrative lawWorkers' compensationAppellate procedureExtraordinary writs

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Industrial Commission retains jurisdiction to act when it grants a motion for reconsideration within the sixty-day appeal period, even if the underlying order has not been vacated.
  2. Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the Industrial Commission to proceed with the case.

Holdings

  1. The Industrial Commission retains jurisdiction when it asserts jurisdiction by granting a motion for reconsideration within the sixty-day period for filing a judicial appeal; the underlying order need not be vacated within that period.
  2. A writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the Industrial Commission to proceed with Baker's case.

Key quotations

“Those decisions must be interpreted to mean that the commission must assert its jurisdiction within the sixty-day period in order to retain it.” (6 Ohio St. 3d at 3)
“The commission retains jurisdiction to proceed with appellant’s case and a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel them to so proceed.” (6 Ohio St. 3d at 3)

Factual background

The Industrial Commission had issued an order in Baker's case and later granted Baker's motion for reconsideration. The dispute concerned whether granting reconsideration asserted or retained the Commission's jurisdiction during the sixty-day period for a judicial appeal, even though the underlying order had not yet been vacated. Baker sought mandamus to compel the Commission to proceed.

Procedural history

The Industrial Commission granted Baker's motion for reconsideration. The court of appeals concluded that the Commission lacked continuing jurisdiction to proceed because the underlying order was not vacated within the applicable sixty-day period. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and allowed the writ of mandamus.

Remand instructions

The Industrial Commission is to proceed with Baker's case.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court