Title: State ex rel. Hodge v. Ryan

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. Hodge v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-999.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-999 
THE STATE EX REL. HODGE, APPELLANT, v. RYAN, ADMR., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hodge v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-999.] 
Workers’ compensation—Mandamus sought to compel Bureau of Workers’ 
Compensation to increase wage of caretaker—Failure to exhaust administrative 
remedies—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1681—Submitted January 3, 2012—Decided March 14, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 09AP-412. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Peggy Hodge, seeks to compel appellee, the 
administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, to pay Vicki Hulbert, a 
licensed practical nurse, higher wages for the in-home care that Hulbert provides 
to her.  Hulbert has helped care for Hodge, a quadriplegic, for decades.  In 1993, 
the Industrial Commission of Ohio set Hulbert’s hourly rate of pay for Hodge’s 
care at $18.75, which was the maximum amount permitted under the agency’s 
guidelines for a licensed practical nurse, absent special circumstances. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Fourteen years later, Hodge asked the commission to increase 
Hulbert’s hourly rate to $30.  On January 29, 2008, a staff hearing officer 
(“SHO”) determined that he had no jurisdiction to order an increase because 
amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code had transferred nursing-service 
oversight to the bureau.  This order apparently was never appealed. 
{¶ 3} A few months later, Hodge again moved the commission to 
increase Hulbert’s wages.  A district hearing officer (“DHO”) dismissed the 
motion on jurisdictional grounds, citing the January 29, 2008 SHO order.  On 
September 16, 2008, a different SHO affirmed the DHO’s order, and again Hodge 
did not appeal. 
{¶ 4} After twice failing to convince the commission to grant Hulbert a 
wage increase, Hodge sought a writ of mandamus against the bureau.  Hodge 
cited the 1993 commission order that originally set Hulbert’s hourly rate pursuant 
to a licensed-practical-nurse schedule and accused the bureau of paying Hulbert at 
a lower unskilled-caregiver rate.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin County 
denied the writ, after finding, among other things, that Hodge’s failure to appeal 
the January 29, 2008 and September 16, 2008 SHO orders constituted a failure to 
exhaust her available administrative remedies. 
{¶ 5} Hodge now appeals to this court as of right. 
{¶ 6} The record before us is minimal and leaves perplexing questions 
unanswered.  We do not know why Hodge, rather than Hulbert, initiated 
proceedings to secure higher wages for Hulbert.  We also do not find any 
evidence that Hodge ever formally moved the bureau for an increase, particularly 
after the January 29, 2008 order specifically stated that it was the bureau, not the 
commission, that had jurisdiction over the matter.  In any event, Hodge pursued 
the matter with the commission and twice failed to appeal orders adverse to her.  
It is well settled that mandamus will not issue when an individual has a plain and 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Berger v. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983).  Administrative remedies 
are plain and adequate remedies that preclude mandamus. State ex rel. Buckley v. 
Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 68, 2003-Ohio-5072, 796 N.E.2d 522.  Hodge 
could have appealed the 2008 SHO orders to the commission but did not.  The 
court of appeals was therefore correct in denying the writ. 
{¶ 7} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Livorno & Arnett Co., L.P.A., and John F. Livorno, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________