Case Title: State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-269

Docket Number: 19981503

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 2000-Ohio-269.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BOOHER, APPELLANT, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, 
INC. ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52.] 
Civil procedure — Workers’ compensation — Civ.R. 53(E)(3), applied — Court 
of appeals’ denial of writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 98-1503 — Submitted January 26, 2000 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD12-1666. 
 
In 1990, appellant-claimant, Ramona D. Booher, was employed by self-
insured appellee Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.  She later alleged that  on 
April 18, 1990, she injured her back in the course of and arising from her 
employment. 
 
Her workers’ compensation claim was denied by appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio, and claimant appealed to the Union County Common Pleas 
Court.  The jury returned a verdict allowing claimant’s claim for “low back strain,” 
specifically disallowing it for “herniated disc,” and judgment was entered upon the 
verdict.  The Court of Appeals for Union County upheld that decision. 
 
Claimant then moved Honda for temporary total disability compensation 
from August 23, 1990 to July 3, 1991 and March 10, 1993 to November 7, 1995.  
Honda denied the request, and the matter was set for an Industrial Commission 
 
 
2
hearing.  A district hearing officer denied compensation, citing evidence that 
attributed claimant’s disability to the nonallowed disc condition.  That order was 
administratively affirmed. 
 
Claimant responded with a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County.  A magistrate, in a decision rendered July 29, 1997, 
recommended denial of the writ, after finding that the commission’s decision was 
supported by “some evidence.”  Claimant did not file objections to that report 
within the time specified in Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a). 
 
In late August 1997, claimant’s counsel allegedly discovered, for the first 
time, the magistrate’s decision intermingled with other mail.  Rather than 
immediately moving the court of appeals for leave to file objections, claimant 
appealed directly to this court (case No. 97-1830).  The commission responded 
with a motion to dismiss, prompting claimant to voluntarily request dismissal of 
her appeal. 
 
On December 22, 1997, claimant moved the court of appeals to vacate the 
magistrate’s decision and permit her to file objections.  The court of appeals denied 
the motion, after finding that claimant had not adequately explained why she had 
waited approximately five months from the discovery of the magistrate’s decision 
to seek relief and file objections. 
 
 
3
 
Claimant filed objections anyway.  The court of appeals, in turn, ordered the 
objections stricken.  On June 11, 1998, the court issued a decision adopting the 
magistrate’s decision, and denied a writ of mandamus. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Sharon E. Deal, for appellant. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee 
Honda of America Mfg., Inc. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Claimant’s arguments before us derive directly from the 
conclusions of law contained in the magistrate’s decision.  Claimant, however, did 
not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires.  Civ.R. 
53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from “assign[ing] as error on appeal the court’s 
adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected 
to that finding or conclusion under this rule.” 
 
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
4
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.