Case Title: State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-1674

Docket Number: 20080700

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 517, 2009-Ohio-
1674.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm., 
 121 Ohio St.3d 517, 2009-Ohio-1674.] 
Civil procedure — Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) — Objections to magistrate’s decision 
necessary to preserve issue for appeal. 
(No. 2008-0700 — Submitted April 8, 2009 — Decided April 15, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 07AP-368. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Findlay Industries, filed a complaint in mandamus in 
the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio had abused its discretion by failing to consider certain 
evidence that it had submitted in connection with Shirley Ruark’s application for 
permanent total disability compensation.  Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) 
of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the matter was referred to a magistrate, 
who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The 
magistrate found that Findlay Industries’ evidence had not been timely submitted, 
relieving the commission of any duty to consider it.  Findlay Industries filed no 
objections to that magistrate’s report, which the court of appeals adopted as its 
own. 
{¶ 2} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 3} Appellant’s arguments derive directly from the conclusions of law 
provided in the magistrate’s decision.  Appellant, however, did not object to those 
conclusions as Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) requires.  Thus, pursuant to that rule and State 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 723 N.E.2d 
571, we can proceed no further. 
{¶ 4} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
William W. Johnston, for appellant. 
 
Richard A. Cordray, Attorney General, and Colleen C. Erdman, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal and L. Frederick Sommer III, for 
appellee Shirley Ruark. 
______________________