Title: State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Indus. Comm’n

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1357.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-1357 
THE STATE EX REL. ALHAMARSHAH, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 
OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Alhamarshah v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1357.] 
Workers’ Compensation—Adequate remedy at law—Court of appeals’ judgment 
denying writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2013-1218—Submitted January 13, 2015—Decided April 9, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 12AP-220, 2013-Ohio-2737. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Claimant-appellant, Mustafa Alhamarshah, appeals the judgment of 
the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying his request for a writ of mandamus 
that would require appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order 
allowing his purported employer to appeal from the order of the Bureau of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Workers’ Compensation that had allowed Alhamarshah’s claim.  The commission 
ultimately denied the claim on the merits. 
{¶ 2} Alhamarshah appealed the denial of his claim to the Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 4123.512(A).  About a month later, he 
filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals 
alleging that the commission abused its discretion when it allowed the purported 
employer to appeal the bureau’s initial order.  Because the appeal in the common 
pleas court provided an adequate remedy at law, Alhamarshah is not entitled to 
relief in mandamus.  Consequently, we affirm, but on grounds other than those 
stated by the court of appeals. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} On September 21, 2009, Alhamarshah was injured when he fell 
while trying to cut a tree branch.  On December 21, 2009, he filed an application 
for workers’ compensation benefits alleging that that injury had occurred while he 
was employed as a laborer for appellee Mohamed Salem, d.b.a. Ballmohd, L.L.C. 
{¶ 4} On January 7, 2010, the bureau allowed the claim against Salem as 
the employer and ordered payment of medical benefits and temporary-total-
disability compensation.  The order informed the parties that the decision would 
become final unless a written appeal was received within 14 days.  The order 
further advised the parties to contact “Jolene M” at the bureau’s Columbus service 
office with any questions. 
{¶ 5} Salem asked a friend, Abdul Alnobani, to telephone Jolene to ask 
about filing an appeal.  Both Salem and Alnobani spoke with Jolene on a three-
way call and she told them how to proceed.  Alnobani then faxed some documents 
to “Jolin” that allegedly disproved any employer-employee relationship.  The 
cover page to the faxed documents identified the subject as “Mustafa 
Alhamarshah—Mohammad Salem,” but it did not include the claim number or 
date of the order being appealed.  Upon receipt, the words “construe as appeal” 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
were handwritten on the cover page, apparently by a bureau employee, and the 
documents were forwarded to the appeals section of the commission. 
{¶ 6} The commission ultimately concluded that Salem’s appeal 
substantially complied with the requirements in R.C. 4123.511(F) for an 
administrative notice of appeal and that there was no evidence that Alhamarshah 
had been prejudiced by any omission in the notice of appeal.  The commission 
accordingly accepted the appeal as valid and referred the matter to a district 
hearing officer for consideration of the merits of the initial application. 
{¶ 7} The hearing officer disallowed the claim on the merits, finding that 
Alhamarshah was not an employee of Salem, and the commission affirmed that 
order.  Alhamarshah appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 
pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.  About a month later, he filed a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus in the court of appeals, alleging that the commission’s order 
determining that Salem’s administrative appeal was valid was an abuse of 
discretion and contrary to law. 
{¶ 8} A magistrate determined that the mandamus action was premature in 
light of the case pending in common pleas court and that the writ should be 
denied on that basis.  By the time the court of appeals considered Alhamarshah’s 
objections, he had dismissed his case in the common pleas court without 
prejudice, subject to refiling within one year.  The court of appeals proceeded to 
consider the merits of the mandamus action and concluded that the commission 
did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Salem’s appeal from the bureau’s 
initial decision in Alhamarshah’s favor to proceed.  The court denied the writ. 
{¶ 9} Alhamarshah’s appeal as of right is now before the court. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 10} Once the commission has issued a final order determining the 
claimant’s entitlement to participate in the worker’s compensation fund, any party 
may appeal the order, except for decisions as to the extent of disability, to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.  R.C. 4123.511(E) and 
4123.512(A); State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 276, 278-
279, 737 N.E.2d 519 (2000).  This court has held that decisions determining an 
employee’s right to participate in the workers’ compensation system because of a 
specific injury or occupational disease are appealable to the court of common 
pleas.  Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 65 Ohio St.3d 234, 602 N.E.2d 1141 
(1992), paragraph one of the syllabus; Afrates v. Lorain, 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 26, 
584 N.E.2d 1175 (1992). 
{¶ 11} The lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law is 
a necessary prerequisite for relief in mandamus.  State ex rel. Consolidation Coal 
Co. v. Indus. Comm., 18 Ohio St.3d 281, 284, 480 N.E.2d 807 (1985), citing State 
ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85, 88, 218 N.E.2d 428 (1966).  
When the relator has a plain and adequate remedy at law by way of appeal, courts 
lack authority to exercise jurisdictional discretion and must deny the writ, 
regardless of whether the relator used the remedy.  Id.; State ex rel. Davet v. 
Sutula, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96548, 2011-Ohio-2803, ¶ 10.  This is a threshold 
question that we must consider even when the court of appeals has not addressed 
the issue.  State ex rel. Woodbury v. Spitler, 40 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, 318 N.E.2d 165 
(1974). 
{¶ 12} In this case, the commission decided that the documentation 
submitted on behalf of the purported employer substantially complied with the 
statutory requirements for a notice of an appeal of the bureau’s initial order.  This 
decision conferred jurisdiction on the commission to proceed to consider the 
merits of the purported employer’s appeal.  The commission’s exercise of 
jurisdiction resulted in a decision denying the claimant’s right to participate in the 
worker’s compensation system.  Consequently, the decision allowing the appeal 
to proceed was essential to the ultimate determination that denied the claimant’s 
participation in the worker’s compensation system.  As such, the commission’s 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
decision to accept the appeal as valid was appealable pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.  
See Consolidation Coal Co. at 284-285. 
{¶ 13} Alhamarshah had an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal 
under R.C. 4123.512 regarding the issue he raises in this case, and therefore he is 
not entitled to relief in mandamus.  Accordingly, on grounds other than those 
stated by the court below, we affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Malek & Malek and Douglas C. Malek, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
Thomas & Company, L.P.A., and Christopher P. Aemisegger, for appellee 
Mohamed Salem, d.b.a. Ballmohd, L.L.C. 
_________________________