Case ID: ohio-st-3d_87/html/0237-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Leyendecker, Appellant, v. Duro Test Corp.; Conrad, Admr., Bureau of Workers’ Compensation et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 237.]
    (No. 98-1040
    Submitted November 3, 1999
    Decided December 1, 1999.)
    
      Butkovich, Schimpf, Schimpf & Ginocchio Co., L.P.A., and James A. Whittaker, for appellant.
    
      Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

Mandamus will not issue where the relator has a plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. For this reason, the failure to pursue an adequate administrative remedy bars mandamus relief. State ex rel. Reeves v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 212, 559 N.E.2d 1311.

Under R.C. 4123.511(B)(1), claimant could have appealed the bureau’s order to a commission district hearing officer. The bureau’s order, moreover, informed claimant, in highlighted language, of his right and responsibility to appeal if he was dissatisfied with the wage as set. Claimant chose not to appeal.

The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.