Case Title: State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2287

Docket Number: 20051108

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 237, 2006-
Ohio-2287.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. AVALON PRECISION CASTING COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm.,  
109 Ohio St.3d 237, 2006-Ohio-2287.] 
Workers’ compensation — Appeal from denial of petition for writ of mandamus — 
Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2005-1108 — Submitted April 11, 2006 — Decided May 24, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 04AP-558, 2005-Ohio-2297. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for summary 
judgment in a workers’ compensation mandamus case.  We affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellee Johnnie Edwards filed a claim for workers’ compensation 
benefits in 2001.  The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation reviewed the claim and 
determined that Edwards was entitled to benefits for workplace injuries to his 
right knee and leg. 
{¶ 3} In 2003, Edwards’s treating physician recommended that Edwards 
undergo a magnetic-resonance-imaging (“MRI”) procedure on his right knee so 
that the doctor could identify and treat his injuries more effectively.  The doctor 
sought and received the bureau’s authorization for the MRI in April 2003.  
Edwards’s employer, Avalon Precision Casting Company, then challenged the 
bureau’s authorization of the MRI, exhausting all administrative appeals at the 
bureau and at the Industrial Commission. 
{¶ 4} When those appeals did not succeed, Avalon filed a petition for a 
writ of mandamus in May 2004 in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
alleging that the bureau and the commission had improperly authorized the MRI 
as a proper course of treatment for Edwards’s workplace injuries.  In a separate 
filing in June 2004, Avalon – citing alleged fraud on the part of Edwards – also 
asked the commission to vacate the bureau’s underlying determination made in 
2001 awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Edwards for those injuries. 
{¶ 5} The commission filed a motion for summary judgment in the 
mandamus case, and in May 2005, the court of appeals granted summary 
judgment in the commission’s favor.  The court of appeals ruled that Avalon’s 
legal challenge to the commission’s authorization of the MRI was not ripe for 
review while Avalon’s motion to vacate the underlying workers’ compensation 
claim was pending before the commission. 
{¶ 6} Avalon has now filed an appeal as of right.  For the reasons that 
follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 7} Avalon argues first that the commission’s motion for summary 
judgment in the court of appeals was untimely and should not have been accepted 
by that court.  The court of appeals, however, expressly granted leave to the 
commission to file the motion within a few days after it was tendered to the court.  
Absent an abuse of discretion, a lower court’s decision to accept such a motion – 
even if the motion is untimely – will not be reversed on appeal.  In this case, 
Avalon was given ample opportunity to respond – and did respond – to the 
commission’s summary judgment motion, and we hold that the court of appeals 
did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the commission to file that motion. 
{¶ 8} In granting the commission’s summary judgment motion, the court 
of appeals concluded that Avalon’s mandamus complaint was premature as long 
as Avalon’s challenge to the underlying allowance of Edwards’s workers’ 
compensation claim was pending before the bureau.  We need not reach that 
ripeness issue, for appellant Avalon urges us to address the merits of its 
January Term, 2006 
3 
mandamus complaint, and we find ample grounds to support the dismissal of that 
complaint on its merits. 
{¶ 9} “The appropriate standard guiding our review is whether there is 
‘some evidence’ in the record to support the commission’s decision. * * *  If so, 
then the commission will not be deemed to have abused its discretion, and the 
granting of a writ of mandamus to correct an abuse of discretion is not 
warranted.”  State ex rel. Secreto v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 581, 
582-583, 687 N.E.2d 715.  This court’s role is not to “micromanage the 
commission 
as 
it 
carries 
out 
the 
business 
of 
compensating 
for 
industrial/occupational injuries and illness.”  State ex rel. Mobley v. Indus. Comm. 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 579, 584, 679 N.E.2d 300.  “Where a commission order is 
adequately explained and based on some evidence, even evidence that may be 
persuasively contradicted by other evidence of record, the order will not be 
disturbed as manifesting an abuse of discretion.”  Id. 
{¶ 10} In this case, Edwards’s treating physician recommended that he 
undergo an MRI on his right knee.  When Avalon challenged that 
recommendation, a second physician reviewed Edwards’s treatment plan and 
agreed that an MRI was a reasonable and necessary procedure that would assist 
his doctor in treating the injured knee.  The bureau then relied on that second 
doctor’s conclusion when it rejected Avalon’s administrative challenges to the 
MRI authorization. 
{¶ 11} Because at least some evidence in the record supported the 
decision of the bureau on the MRI issue, we cannot say that the commission 
abused its discretion when it declined to overturn the bureau’s authorization of 
that procedure.  Avalon was therefore not entitled to a writ of mandamus 
compelling the commission to reach a different outcome, and the court of appeals 
properly granted judgment in the commission’s favor on the mandamus 
complaint. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy and Aubrey B. Willacy, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Dennis Behm, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
 
Rapoport, Spitz, Friedland & Courtney and Michael M. Courtney, for 
appellee Johnnie Edwards. 
______________________