Case Title: State ex rel. Riser Foods, Inc. v. Trimble

Citation: 1995-Ohio-101

Docket Number: 19932626

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Riser Foods, Inc., f.k.a. American Seaway                      
Foods, Inc., Appellant, v. Trimble et al., Appellees.                            
[Cite as State ex rel. Riser Foods, Inc. v. Trimble                              
(1995),      Ohio St.3d     .]                                                   
Workers' compensation -- Denial of handicap reimbursement to                     
     self-insured employer by Industrial Commission not an                       
     abuse of discretion, when.                                                  
     (No. 93-2626 -- Submitted March 21, 1995 -- Decided May                     
24, 1995.)                                                                       
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
92AP-827.                                                                        
     Appellant Riser Foods, Inc. (f.k.a. American Seaway Foods,                  
Inc.) is a self-insured employer.  In 1983, a Riser worker, who                  
was a handicapped employee within the meaning of R.C. 4123.343,                  
sustained an industrial injury.  Relator, in turn, filed for                     
handicap reimbursement for the compensation and benefits paid                    
as a result.  A one-hundred-percent reimbursement was granted                    
on August 18, 1986.                                                              
     On August 22, 1986, statutory amendments to R.C. 4123.343                   
significantly changed the handicap reimbursement system.  Am.                    
Sub. S.B. No. 307, 141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 718.  One of these                     
changes afforded, for the first time, an opportunity for                         
self-insured employers to opt out of the handicap reimbursement                  
program. R.C. 4123.343(G)(141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 745).                           
     The record contains what is apparently the last page of a                   
letter.  A portion of this page reads:                                           
     "I have certified that I am empowered to make this                          
election on behalf of American Seaway Foods, Inc. [Riser                         
Foods], a self-insured employer (Risk No. 3279).                                 
     "I hereby elect to withdraw from the handicap                               
reimbursement program effective January 1, 1988.                                 
     "Jerome Borstein                                                            
     "Vice President                                                             
     "[Signature of Jerome Borstein]                                             
     "Vice President                                                             
     "Title                                                                      
     "[Handwritten date of 9-18-87]                                              
     "Date"                                                                      
     Riser later sought reimbursement for further expenditures                   
made on the aforementioned claimant's behalf.  Appellee                          
Industrial Commission of Ohio denied reimbursement, finding                      
that because Riser had opted out of the handicap program, it                     
was no longer eligible for reimbursement.                                        
     Riser filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of                         
Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission                        
abused its discretion in denying reimbursement.  The appellate                   
court denied the writ.                                                           
     The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                     
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Garson & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stuart I. Garson and                       
Michael J. Skindell, for appellant.                                              
     Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H.                        
Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.                             
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  Riser claims that the appellate court erred                    
in (1) admitting into evidence the Borstein letter, and (2)                      
affirming the commission's reimbursement denial.  Riser's                        
arguments lack merit.                                                            
     Following the completion of briefing in this case,  we                      
decided State ex rel. First Natl. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Indus.                   
Comm. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 582, 639 N.E.2d 1185, which                          
resolved the very issue currently raised.  First Natl.                           
Supermarkets held that once a self-insured employer opted out                    
of the handicap reimbursement program, the self-insured was                      
entitled to no further reimbursement, even in those claims in                    
which the right to reimbursement accrued  before the opt out.                    
We reasoned:                                                                     
     "FNS's [First National Supermarkets'] position fails to                     
recognize that it was FNS's own actions, not the amendment of                    
the statute, that eliminated its right to reimbursement.  Had                    
FNS not voluntarily opted out of the program, its right to                       
reimbursement would still exist.                                                 
     "* * *                                                                      
     "To hold as FNS urges would allow it to receive handicap                    
reimbursement without contributing to the Reimbursement Fund.                    
This is unfair to those employers who may have elected to                        
remain in the program and would continue to pay into it.  When                   
FNS chose no longer to contribute to the fund, it also chose                     
not to receive money from it.  Therefore, the commission did                     
not abuse its discretion in denying reimbursement."  Id. at                      
585-586, 639 N.E.2d at 1188-1189.                                                
     First Natl. Supermarkets is directly on point and compels                   
affirmance of the appellate court's holding.                                     
     Turning to Riser's remaining assertion, the parties do not                  
seriously disagree that one of the documents of record is the                    
last page of a two-page letter which contains the above-quoted                   
statement signed by Riser's then Vice-President Jerome                           
Borstein, now deceased.  The parties also agree that the                         
letter's first page has disappeared.  Riser asserts that                         
because the letter is incomplete, Evid. R. 106 bars the                          
letter's admission.  This, too, fails.                                           
     Evid. R. 106 states:                                                        
     "When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is                    
introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that                  
time to introduce any other part or any other writing or                         
recorded statement which is otherwise admissible and which                       
ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."                   
     Declaring the Borstein letter admissible, the appellate                     
court reasoned:  (1) Relevant evidence is generally admissible                   
under Evid. R. 402; (2) Evid. R. 106 does not automatically                      
render inadmissible the introduction of only a portion of a                      
written statement; and Evid. R. 106 was instead "intended to                     
spare the adverse party the necessity of waiting until a later                   
point in the litigation to place the supplemental writing or                     
recording into its proper perspective."                                          
     Riser has not persuaded us that the stated intention to                     
opt out of the program has somehow been misread because of the                   
missing first page.   We find, therefore, that the letter was                    
properly admitted and is "some evidence" supporting the                          
commission's decision.                                                           
     The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.                           
                                     Judgment affirmed.                          
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and                     
Cook, JJ., concur.                                                               
     Resnick, J., dissents.