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

Citation: 2002-Ohio-4796

Docket Number: 20010886

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Abate v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 343, 2002-Ohio-4796.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ABATE, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Abate v. Indus. Comm. 96 Ohio St.3d 343, 2002-Ohio-
4796.] 
Civil procedure — Workers’ compensation — Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b), applied — 
Court of appeals’ denial of motion for relief from judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2001-0886 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided September 25, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-849. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
It is undisputed that appellant-claimant Alice M. Abate was 
overpaid permanent total disability and Disabled Workers’ Relief Fund benefits 
from November 25, 1987, through July 5, 1989.  Pursuant to R.C. 4123.511(J), 
appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio ordered recoupment via offset from 
future compensation.  Contending that the statute did not apply, claimant sought a 
writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. 
{¶2} 
On December 29, 2000, the magistrate recommended that the writ 
be denied.  On January 22, 2001—24 days after the magistrate’s decision was 
filed—claimant filed her objections to that decision.  Claimant’s untimely filing 
prompted the commission to file a motion to strike, and that motion was granted. 
{¶3} 
On February 2, 2001, claimant moved for relief from judgment 
pursuant to Civ. R. 60.  The court of appeals denied that motion: 
{¶4} 
“Relator has failed to provide an explanation regarding why her 
objections were not filed with this court until January 22, 2001, when they were 
due for filing on or before January 12, 2001.  Relator’s January 20, 2001 motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
for relief from judgment, which is not the proper procedural vehicle to address 
this court’s order striking relator’s objections, is denied.” 
{¶5} 
On March 29, 2001, the court of appeals issued its decision and 
judgment entry, which repeated the finding that claimant had failed to timely file 
objections, and adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own.  This cause is now 
before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶6} 
Claimant concedes that she did not file her objections in a timely 
manner.  She asserts, however, that because the error was due to “mistake, 
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” Civ. R.60(B)(1) compels 
consideration of her cause on the merits. 
{¶7} 
We agree with the court of appeals that claimant’s motion for relief 
from judgment is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the court of appeals’ 
decision to grant the commission’s motion to strike.  Given, therefore, the 
untimeliness of claimant’s objections, we can proceed no further in our review.  
Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b); State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 52, 723 N.E.2d 571. 
{¶8} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is accordingly affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A., Gary D. Plunkett and Michelle L. King, 
for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Daniel M. Hall, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________