Case Title: State ex rel. Buckley v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2003-Ohio-5072

Docket Number: 20030583

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Buckley v. Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 68, 2003-Ohio-5072.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BUCKLEY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Buckley v. Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 68, 2003-Ohio-
5072.] 
Workers’ compensation — Mandamus sought to compel Industrial Commission to 
reset claimant’s average weekly wage — Court of appeals’ denial of writ 
affirmed — State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp., applied. 
(No. 2003-0583 — Submitted September 17, 2003 — Decided October 8, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 02AP-498, 2003-
Ohio-667. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant, Tereal A. Buckley, was injured in a work-
related accident on July 4, 2001.  The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation 
allowed the claim in an order dated July 20, 2001.  The order also set claimant’s 
full weekly wage (“FWW”) and average weekly wage (“AWW”) at $96.87 and 
$29.31, respectively.  These amounts were based on an employer earnings ledger 
submitted by claimant. 
{¶2} 
The order also stated: 
{¶3} 
“BWC law requires a 14-day period for the injured worker or 
employer to appeal this order.  However, if the injured worker and the employer 
agree with this decision, the 14-day appeal period may be waived by both parties 
submitting a waiver in writing to the listed BWC customer service office. 
{¶4} 
“If the injured worker or the employer disagree with this decision, 
either may file an appeal within 14-days of receipt of this order.  * * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶5} 
“IF AN APPEAL IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN 14-DAYS, THIS 
DECISION IS FINAL. 
{¶6} 
“If there are any questions concerning this claim, contact the 
claims service specialist at the listed BWC customer service office.  However, a 
telephone call or other correspondence does not alter the need to file an appeal.  
Therefore, if you are not satisfied with this order, you must file an appeal within 
14-days of receipt of this order.” 
{¶7} 
Claimant did not appeal.  Two months later, on September 21, 
2001, claimant moved the bureau to reset her AWW under R.C. 4123.61’s 
“special circumstances” provision.  She resubmitted her wage information and 
also offered an affidavit attesting to her status as a full-time university student. 
{¶8} 
The bureau referred the matter to appellee, the Industrial 
Commission of Ohio, for hearing.  The commission denied the motion, finding 
that recalculation was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 
{¶9} 
Claimant commenced a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County, petitioning the court to order the commission to grant her 
motion.  The court denied the writ after finding that claimant’s failure to appeal 
the July 20, 2001 bureau order constituted a failure to pursue an available 
administrative remedy.  A writ of mandamus was, therefore, unavailable. 
{¶10} This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶11} This case is not about res judicata and the invocation of the 
commission’s continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.52.  It instead involves the 
effect of claimant’s failure to appeal the July 20, 2001 bureau order that set her 
FWW and AWW, and, on this, State ex rel. Leyendecker v. Duro Test Corp. 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 237, 719 N.E.2d 528, is directly on point. 
{¶12} As here, Leyendecker failed to appeal a bureau weekly wage order 
that contained a notice of appealability and finality similar to the one now before 
us.  Later, claimant tried to have his AWW and FWW reset.  The commission 
January Term, 2003 
3 
denied that request, and the court of appeals upheld that order.  We, in turn, 
affirmed the court of appeals, writing: 
{¶13} “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. 
{¶14} “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.”  Id. at 237-238, 719 N.E.2d 528. 
{¶15} Claimant argues that consideration of this issue is inappropriate, 
claiming that the commission in its answer conceded the unavailability of an 
adequate remedy at law.  This is an incorrect reading of the commission’s answer.  
The commission admitted claimant’s allegation that the commission’s order 
denying claimant’s September 21, 2001 motion was “not appealable into the 
Common Pleas Court under Ohio Revised Code 4123.519 and [claimant], 
therefore, has no adequate remedy at law.”  This is a true statement that required 
the commission’s admission.  It is not, however, a concession that claimant’s 
failure to appeal the bureau’s order was inconsequential to the issuance of a writ 
of mandamus. 
{¶16} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A., Gary D. Plunkett and Mark Kalafatas, for 
appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
__________________