Case Title: State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emp. Retirement Sys.

Citation: 2003-Ohio-6086

Docket Number: 20030991

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emp. Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-
6086.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SCHMIDT, APPELLANT, v. SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emp. Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 
317, 2003-Ohio-6086.] 
Mandamus sought to compel School Employees Retirement System to grant 
relator’s previously filed application for disability retirement benefits — 
Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2003-0991 — Submitted November 3, 2003 — Decided December 3, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 02AP-355, 2003-
Ohio-2051. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In January 2002, appellant, Patricia Schmidt, filed a complaint in 
the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.  In her complaint as subsequently 
amended, Schmidt requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, School 
Employees Retirement System (“SERS”), to grant her previously filed application 
for disability retirement benefits.  Upon SERS’s motion, the case was transferred 
to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. 
{¶2} 
The court of appeals referred the case to a magistrate under Civ.R. 
53(C) and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  In November 
2002, the magistrate issued a decision in which he recommended that the court of 
appeals deny the writ because Schmidt’s brief did not comply with the 
requirements of App.R. 19 and Loc.R. 12(J). 
{¶3} 
In April 2003, after Schmidt failed to file objections to the 
magistrate’s decision, the court of appeals denied the writ.  The court of appeals 
“agree[d] with the magistrate’s determination that [Schmidt] failed to file a brief 
January Term, 2003 
2 
in compliance with Loc.R. 12(J) and App.R. 19, thereby justifying the denial of 
the requested writ of mandamus.”  The court of appeals further concluded that 
“the argument [Schmidt] appears to advance was rejected” in State ex rel 
Schwaben v. School Emp. Retirement Sys. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 280, 667 N.E.2d 
398. 
{¶4} 
On appeal, Schmidt asserts that we should reconsider our decision 
in Schwaben. 
{¶5} 
Schmidt is not entitled to reversal of the judgment denying the 
writ.  Although the court of appeals gave two reasons to deny the writ, i.e., failure 
to comply with the briefing requirements of App.R. 19 and Loc.R. 12(J) and our 
holding in Schwaben, she challenges only the court of appeals’ reliance on 
Schwaben in this appeal.  Even if the court’s rationale on this latter ground was 
incorrect, its judgment denying the writ is not subject to reversal because Schmidt 
does not challenge all of the independent reasons given by the court of appeals to 
deny the writ.  See Stewart v. Corrigan, 97 Ohio St.3d 80, 2002-Ohio-5316, 776 
N.E.2d 103, ¶ 4 (“even if the court’s rationale on this ground was incorrect, its 
judgment denying the writ based on the grounds that Stewart does not contest on 
appeal was proper”); State ex rel. White v. Suster, 95 Ohio St.3d 465, 2002-Ohio-
2482, 768 N.E.2d 1178, ¶ 3.  That is, Schmidt does not challenge the propriety of 
the court of appeals’ denial of the writ based on her failure to comply with the 
briefing requirements of App.R. 19 and Loc.R. 12(J). 
{¶6} 
Moreover, even if Schmidt had raised this briefing issue on appeal, 
she waived any error by failing to object to the court of appeals’ adoption of the 
magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  “A party shall not assign 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.”  Civ.R. 
53(E)(3)(d); Loc.R. 12(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals (“the 
proceedings and decision of the magistrate and objections thereto shall be 
January Term, 2003 
3 
governed by Civ.R. 53”); see, also, Smith v. Null (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 264, 
271, 757 N.E.2d 1200; Boyd v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 
384, 388, 760 N.E.2d 433. 
{¶7} 
Therefore, we need not consider Schmidt’s argument concerning 
the applicability of Schwaben to SERS’s decision to deny her application for 
disability retirement benefits.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Croskery & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Robert F. Croskery, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Judith T. Edwards, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
__________________