Title: State ex rel. Aaron's, Inc. v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.

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. Aaron’s, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. Of Workers’ Comp., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5011.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5011 
THE STATE OF OHIO EX REL. AARON’S, INC., APPELLANT, v. OHIO BUREAU OF 
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Aaron’s, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. Of Workers’ Comp., 
Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5011.] 
Workers’ compensation—Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C)—Bureau of Workers’ 
Compensation did not abuse discretion when it applied audit adjustment to 
the 24 months prior to the current payroll where substantial 
misclassifications occurred over a significant period of time and resulted in 
considerable underpayment of premiums to state fund. 
(No. 2014-1641—Submitted January 5, 2016—Decided July 20, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-170,  
2014-Ohio-3425. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This action by appellant, Aaron’s, Inc., f.k.a. Aaron Rents, Inc. 
(“Aaron’s”), arose as a result of a limited writ of mandamus granted in State ex rel. 
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 129 Ohio St.3d 130, 2011-Ohio-
3140, 950 N.E.2d 551, ordering appellee, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 
to explain why it had denied the company’s request that the bureau’s order 
reclassifying some of the company’s employees for purposes of workers’ 
compensation premiums be applied solely prospectively. 
{¶ 2} On remand, the administrator’s designee concluded that the bureau 
appropriately exercised its discretion under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) to 
apply the reclassification retroactively.  The administrator’s designee relied on 
evidence demonstrating the magnitude and scope of the company’s prior reporting 
discrepancies that resulted in a large underpayment of premiums. 
{¶ 3} Aaron’s filed this action for mandamus relief.  The court of appeals 
concluded that the evidence in the record supported the bureau’s decision and that 
no internal policy of the bureau created a clear legal duty requiring the bureau to 
apply the classifications solely prospectively.  10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-170, 
2014-Ohio-3425, ¶ 5-6.  For the reasons that follow, we agree, and we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Background 
{¶ 4} When a business applies for workers’ compensation coverage, the 
bureau classifies the occupation or industry by degree of hazard according to the 
categories established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and 
incorporated into the Ohio BWC State Insurance Fund Manual.  See R.C. 
4123.29(A)(1).  There are two types of classifications.  The “basic” or “manual” 
classification describes the business of an employer.  Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-
08(B)(1); see also Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-02(A).  The “standard exception” 
classification describes an occupation that is common to many businesses.  Ohio 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Adm.Code 4123-17-08(B)(2).  For example, clerical office employees, not 
otherwise classified (code 8810), are defined as those workers “whose duties are 
confined to keeping the books and records of the risk [i.e., of the employer], and 
conducting correspondence, and drafting, or who are engaged wholly in office work 
where such books and records are kept, having no other duties of any nature in or 
about the risk’s premises.”  Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-08(B)(2) and 4123-17-09. 
{¶ 5} As we have explained:  
 
The [BWC State Insurance Fund Manual] designates the 
basic rate that an employer must pay, per $100 in payroll, to secure 
workers’ compensation coverage for its employees.  Each 
occupational classification has a corresponding basic dollar rate.  
This base rate applies to all employers within the classification and 
effectively spreads the total loss within the classification among all 
members. 
 
State ex rel. Roberds, Inc. v. Conrad, 86 Ohio St.3d 221, 222, 714 N.E.2d 390 
(1999).  Once the bureau assigns one or more classifications, it is the employer’s 
responsibility to correctly report premium and payroll data to the bureau.  See id.  
The bureau has the right to audit an employer’s records to verify the correctness of 
its payroll reports used to determine premiums.  Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C). 
Facts 
{¶ 6} Aaron’s, a Georgia corporation, began doing business in Ohio in 
1992, primarily as a furniture-rental business.  When Aaron’s applied for workers’ 
compensation coverage, the bureau assigned the business the basic occupational 
classification of 8044 (store: furniture & drivers) and the standard-exception 
classification of 8810 (clerical office employees, not otherwise classified).  Aaron’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
placed its employees into one of those two categories in listing its payroll for the 
bureau. 
{¶ 7} In 2006, the bureau conducted a routine audit of the company’s 
records.  The auditor apparently concluded that Aaron’s had incorrectly listed many 
of its employees as 8810 clerical workers instead of placing them under the 
business’s basic classification of 8044.  However, the audit report was not finalized, 
in part because it did not pass the bureau’s quality-review process.  Therefore, 
Aaron’s was not notified of its results. 
{¶ 8} The bureau initiated a new audit and on March 18, 2008, issued its 
audit report.  As a result of the 2008 audit, the bureau added several classifications 
to Aaron’s payroll, applied them retroactively to July 1, 2004, and billed Aaron’s 
for more than $2 million in back premiums. 
{¶ 9} Aaron’s filed an administrative protest of both the 2008 audit findings 
and the retroactive application of the new classifications.  Following a hearing, the 
bureau’s adjudicating committee upheld the new classifications but limited their 
retroactive application to a period of two years. 
2009 Complaint for Writ of Mandamus 
{¶ 10} Aaron’s filed a complaint in mandamus in the Tenth District Court 
of Appeals alleging that the bureau had abused its discretion when it failed to 
adequately explain why it rejected the company’s request to apply the 
reclassifications solely prospectively.  The court of appeals disagreed and denied 
the writ.  We reversed that judgment and issued a limited writ of mandamus 
ordering the bureau to further consider the matter and to issue an amended order 
explaining why it decided to apply the reclassifications retroactively and not solely 
prospectively as Aaron’s had advocated.  State ex rel. Aaron Rents, Inc., 129 Ohio 
St.3d 130, 2011-Ohio-3140, 950 N.E.2d 551, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 11} Following a hearing on remand, the administrator’s designee 
concluded that the bureau properly exercised its discretion under Ohio Adm.Code 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
4123-17-17(C) to apply the reclassification retroactively.  The version of Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) that was in effect at the time of the audit and hearing1 
provided: 
 
The bureau shall have the right * * * to inspect, examine or 
audit * * * employers for the purpose of verifying the correctness of 
reports made by employers of wage expenditures * * *.  The bureau 
shall also have the right to make adjustments as to classifications, 
allocation of wage expenditures to classifications, amount of wage 
expenditures, premium rates or amount of premium.  * * * Except 
as provided in Rule 4123–17–28 of the Administrative Code, no 
adjustments shall be made in an employer's account which result in 
increasing any amount of premium above the amount of 
contributions made by the employer to the fund for the periods 
involved, except in reference to adjustments for the semi-annual or 
adjustment periods ending within twenty-four months immediately 
prior to the beginning of the current payroll reporting period. 
 
Former Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), 2008-2009 Ohio Monthly Record 2-1840. 
{¶ 12} The administrator’s designee relied on the testimony of Charles 
Goellnitz, a bureau auditor, and the audit results showing that Aaron’s had 
improperly reported a large percentage of its operational employees as clerical 
employees, resulting in its paying substantially less in premiums than it should 
have.  The administrator’s designee stated that “Goellnitz concluded that because 
of the scope of the reporting discrepancies, and the fact that the inaccurate reporting 
                                                 
1 Amendments to Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) that became effective on July 1, 2015, see 2014-
2015 Ohio Monthly Record 2-991, changed its language slightly but would not result in a different 
outcome in this case.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
resulted in a large underpayment of premiums, it would have been inappropriate to 
allow the employer to benefit from its inaccurate reporting of payroll.” 
2013 Complaint for Writ of Mandamus  
{¶ 13} Aaron’s filed the instant complaint in the Tenth District seeking a 
writ of mandamus regarding the January 17, 2012 order of the administrator’s 
designee.  Aaron’s alleged that the bureau’s decision to bill it for back premiums 
was an abuse of discretion and violated Ohio law. 
{¶ 14} The case was referred to a magistrate, who concluded that the 
administrator’s designee appropriately exercised his discretion under Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) in ordering the reclassifications to be applied 
retroactively.  The magistrate noted that the administrator’s designee did not find 
that Aaron’s was at fault or that it intentionally misreported its payroll.  The 
magistrate nevertheless concluded that the magnitude of the misclassification was 
a sufficient basis for the bureau to deny the request to apply the audit findings solely 
prospectively. 
{¶ 15} Aaron’s objected, arguing that the magistrate’s conclusion was not 
supported by the record and that the bureau’s internal policy was to “go prospective 
on an audit” unless there was intentional wrongdoing or disregard on the part of the 
employer. 
{¶ 16} The court of appeals rejected these arguments, adopted the 
magistrate’s decision, and denied the writ. 
{¶ 17} This matter is before the court on an appeal as of right filed by 
Aaron’s. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 18} To be entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a relator 
must establish a clear legal right to the relief requested, a clear legal duty on the 
part of the bureau to provide the relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
Ohio St.3d 480, 2008-Ohio-1593, 884 N.E.3d 1075 ¶ 9.  When an order is 
adequately explained and based on some evidence, there is no abuse of discretion 
and a reviewing court must not disturb the order.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Indus. 
Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 579, 584, 679 N.E.2d 300 (1997). 
{¶ 19} Aaron’s alleges that it is entitled to relief in mandamus because the 
bureau’s explanation for retroactive application of the reclassification was arbitrary 
and contrary to bureau policy.  According to Aaron’s, the magnitude of its 
misreporting was due to the bureau’s inaction and failure to notify Aaron’s of any 
problems after the 2006 audit.  Aaron’s maintains that it did not knowingly 
misclassify employees and, had it known of a problem with its reporting, it would 
have corrected any error or, in the alternative, become self-insured.  Finally, 
Aaron’s contends that the bureau’s explanation is inconsistent with bureau policy. 
{¶ 20} The bureau contends that under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), it 
had the right to make adjustments to correct errors and to apply those adjustments 
up to 24 months preceding the employer’s current payroll period and that in doing 
so, it was not required to prove intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employer. 
{¶ 21} We agree.  The bureau properly exercised its discretion under Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C).  The evidence supported the bureau’s decision, and no 
internal policy imposed a clear legal duty on the bureau to apply the reclassification 
solely prospectively.  The version of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) that was in 
effect at the time of the audit provided the bureau with authority to apply audit 
adjustments for the 24 months immediately prior to the beginning of the “current 
payroll reporting period.”  See 2008-2009 Ohio Monthly Record 2-1840. 
{¶ 22} The purpose of retroactive adjustment is to correct an error or 
mistake, even if the employer was not at fault for the mistake.  See State ex rel. 
Granville Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 518, 521, 597 
N.E.2d 127 (1992).  The bureau did just that in State ex rel. Harry Wolsky Stair 
Builder, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.3d 222, 569 N.E.2d 900 (1991).  In that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
case, an employer sought a refund of more than three years’ worth of overcharged 
premiums following a change of occupational classification.  The employer argued 
that the incorrect classification had been the bureau’s fault.  We affirmed the 
bureau’s decision that regardless of fault, refunds are limited to the 24 months 
immediately prior to the current payroll-reporting period, citing former Ohio 
Adm.Code 4121-7-17(C).2  Harry Wolsky Stair Builder at 223.  The rules makes 
no distinction between employer and bureau error.  Id.; see also Granville 
Volunteer Fire Dept. at 521 (although the employer blamed the bureau for its 
overpayment of premiums from 1977 through 1986, the bureau was limited under 
former Ohio Adm.Code 4121-7-17(C) to reimbursing for only two years’ worth). 
{¶ 23} Furthermore, in 2008, Aaron’s acknowledged in a statement before 
the bureau’s adjudicating committee that consistent with the application of Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), the postaudit premium adjustment should include the 
payroll periods for the prior two years. 
{¶ 24} Consequently, the bureau’s retroactive application of the 
reclassification for a period of 24 months was a proper exercise of its discretion 
under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C). 
{¶ 25} The evidence supported the bureau’s decision.  The administrator’s 
designee justified the retroactive application of the reclassification based on “the 
magnitude of th[e] misreporting.”  The administrator’s designee relied on the 
testimony of the auditor, Mr. Goellnitz, that Aaron’s was reporting approximately 
76 percent of its payroll as clerical when the audit “revealed that only six percent 
of the employer’s payroll was clerical in nature.”  The administrator’s designee 
noted that the “audit revealed that the employer was reporting a very different 
distribution of employees to insurers in other states, even though both the Bureau 
and the outside insurers use the same classification system.” 
                                                 
2 Former Ohio Adm.Code 4121-7-17(C) is the predecessor of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C).  
Roberds, 86 Ohio St.3d at 223, 714 N.E.2d 390. 
January Term, 2016 
 
9
{¶ 26} Finally, the argument that the bureau’s decision was inconsistent 
with its policy to apply audit adjustments solely prospectively lacks merit.  Other 
than references in the internal bureau e-mails identified at the hearing, Aaron’s does 
not identify or produce a specific bureau policy that requires the bureau to apply 
audit adjustments prospectively only.  Nevertheless, even if Aaron’s had produced 
an internal policy, this court has held that policy alone does not create a legal right 
or duty.  State ex rel. Estate of Sziraki v. Admr., Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 137 Ohio 
St.3d 201, 2013-Ohio-4007, 998 N.E.2d 1074, ¶ 26; see also State ex rel. NHVS 
Internatl., Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-356, 
2014-Ohio-5522, ¶ 8 (bureau policy does not create a legal right or duty); State ex 
rel. Bledsoe v. Marion Steel Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-193, 2002-Ohio-
6835, ¶ 9 (internal memo does not create a legal duty or a legal right to the relief 
requested).  Consequently, no internal policy imposed a clear legal duty on the 
bureau to apply the reclassification solely prospectively. 
{¶ 27} Therefore, the bureau did not abuse its discretion when it applied the 
audit adjustment to the 24 months prior to the current payroll period, as authorized 
in former Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), where substantial misclassifications 
occurred over a significant period of time and resulted in considerable 
underpayment of premiums to the state fund. 
{¶ 28} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents in an opinion that LANZINGER and KENNEDY, JJ., 
join. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 29} Respectfully, I dissent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 30} Aaron’s, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Tenth District Court 
of Appeals denying its request for a writ of mandamus to compel the Bureau of 
Workers’ Compensation to vacate its order applying the reclassification of several 
Aaron’s employees retroactively and to remove the entire back billing on the 
company’s account.  In my view, Aaron’s is entitled to relief because the bureau 
abused its discretion when it applied the 2008 audit adjustments retroactively and 
ordered Aaron’s to pay $1.6 million in back billing on its account. 
{¶ 31} To obtain relief in mandamus, a party must establish a clear legal 
right to the relief requested, a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and the lack of 
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Turner Constr. Co. 
of Ohio v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 310, 2015-Ohio-1202, 29 N.E.3d 969,  
50¶ 10. 
{¶ 32} The standard used by the majority is, “When an order is adequately 
explained and based on some evidence, there is no abuse of discretion and a 
reviewing court must not disturb the order.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 18 citing State 
ex rel. Mobley v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 579, 584, 679 N.E.2d 300 (1997).  
The majority also noted that the administrator’s designee justified the retroactive 
application based on the magnitude of the company’s misreporting.  Majority 
opinion at ¶ 25 
{¶ 33} However, the order issued by the bureau in this case is neither 
adequately explained nor based on any evidence to justify a retroactive application 
of the 2008 audit results.  Rather, without explanation the bureau of workers’ 
compensation patently acted contrary to its usual and customary practice of 
prospectively applying audit changes and instead applied the employee 
classification audit changes from the 2008 audit retroactively without any basis to 
do so, as evidenced by e-mails from personnel in the bureau because the bureau 
itself admits there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing by Aaron’s. 
January Term, 2016 
 
11 
{¶ 34} In its final order, the bureau cited the testimony of Charles Goellnitz, 
a bureau auditor, that it would have been inappropriate to allow Aaron’s to benefit 
from its inaccurate reporting of payroll due to the scope of the reporting 
inaccuracies that resulted in a large underpayment of premiums, and that the bureau 
exercised its discretion under Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-17(C) and ordered that the 
audit findings be applied retroactively. 
{¶ 35} However, that order fails to adequately explain the bureau’s decision 
to apply the audit adjustments retroactively for two reasons: first, the bureau does 
not account for its failure to notify Aaron’s of the results of its 2006 audit which 
could have prevented Aaron’s from underpaying the $1.6 million that the bureau 
now orders Aaron’s to pay; and second, the bureau does not explain why it is 
deviating from its internal policy of applying audit adjustments retroactively only 
when there is evidence of knowing or intentional wrongdoing.  In this instance, 
there is no indication that Aaron’s knowingly or intentionally misrepresented its 
payroll and the bureau has made no finding in that regard. 
{¶ 36} In 2006, the bureau audited Aaron’s and found that it had incorrectly 
classified many of its employees as clerical workers.  However, the bureau failed 
to complete a report of the audit because the audit did not pass the bureau’s quality 
review process, and the bureau never notified Aaron’s that it was misclassifying its 
employees.  In 2008, the bureau conducted a second audit, added new classification 
codes to the company’s payroll, applied them retroactively to July 1, 2004, in 
violation of the Ohio Administrative Code, and billed Aaron’s for more than $2 
million.  Aaron’s appealed that decision, and the bureau’s adjudicating committee 
limited the retroactive adjustment to a period of two years to conform with the 
Administrative Code. See former Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), 2008-2009 Ohio 
Monthly Record 2-1840 (limiting retroactive classification to a period of two 
years).  As a result of that adjustment however, the bureau claimed that Aaron’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
still owed $1,667,360.81, despite the fact that prior to 2008, the bureau never 
informed Aaron’s that it had misclassified some of its employees. 
{¶ 37} Had the bureau informed Aaron’s after the 2006 audit that the 
company was misclassifying some of its employees as clerical workers, Aaron’s 
could have avoided the underpayment of its premiums.  Instead, the bureau took no 
further action until the 2008 audit, and Aaron’s continued to pay premiums as it 
had in the past, having no indication from the bureau that it should have reclassified 
its employees as a result of the bureau’s 2006 audit. 
{¶ 38} In addition, the bureau has a policy of applying adjustments 
retroactively only where there is an indication that the employer knew it was 
improperly classifying employees.  Evidence of this policy consists of e-mails 
between employees of the bureau pointing out their uncertainty with respect to 
whether the adjustments in this case should or should not be applied retroactively. 
{¶ 39} Michael Glass, the bureau’s director of employer compliance, wrote 
in an e-mail to Goellnitz: 
 
 
Normally we would go prospective on an audit if we felt the 
employer didn’t know or couldn’t have known proper reporting 
requirements or BWC failed to assign the code to their policy, etc.  
We must have felt that Aaron Rents knew how to report correctly 
and had the code.  This can sometimes be established through a 
previous audit or some other documented communication with the 
employer. 
 
{¶ 40} In another email to Glass from Joy Bush, the bureau’s executive 
director of employer management services, Bush stated, “The only exception I 
think there would be to prospective is a very obvious case of disregard to previous 
audit instructions.”  (Emphasis added.) 
January Term, 2016 
 
13 
{¶ 41} After the bureau completed its 2008 audit, however, its fraud unit 
conducted an investigation that concluded: 
 
Upon review of the claims filed and documents received 
during the audit process and investigation it has been found that 
Aaron Rents improperly reported several job classifications under 
the clerical manual.  However, based on the documents received, 
there is currently no evidence to prove that Aaron Rents had 
knowledge of or intentionally misreported payroll. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 42} The e-mail from Michael Glass tellingly articulates that the bureau 
normally would “go prospective” on audits when the employer did not know proper 
reporting requirements and asserts that the bureau must have felt Aaron’s knew 
how to report correctly as can be established through a previous audit or other 
documented communication.  But here, there was no communication from a 
previous audit or other communication in this case. 
{¶ 43} In addition, the Joy Bush e-mail confirms that the only exception to 
a prospective audit reclassification is a very obvious case of disregard of previous 
audit instructions.  Plainly, the bureau never communicated any previous audit 
instructions to Aaron’s resulting from its 2006 audit, and that point is not contested 
and therefore there is no “very obvious case of disregard of previous audit 
instructions,” and that fact dispels Glass’s assumption that the bureau “must have 
felt” that Aaron’s knew how to report correctly. 
{¶ 44} And finally, the bureau’s fraud unit admitted that no evidence 
existed to prove Aaron’s had knowledge or intended to misrepresent its payroll. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
{¶ 45} These are telling admissions from the bureau that militate strongly 
against retroactive application of employee classifications and favor adhering to the 
policy of the bureau regarding prospective application of audit results. 
{¶ 46} While the majority emphasizes the magnitude of the misreporting as 
evidence to justify retroactive application of the employee classification changes, 
that view is contradicted most directly by the bureau’s fraud unit and the conclusion 
reached in its report. 
{¶ 47} It is apparent that Aaron’s never received previous audit instructions 
or any other communication from the bureau indicating that it was misclassifying 
its employees.  Thus, there is relevant material evidence that the bureau deviated 
from its normal policy despite a lack of evidence that Aaron’s knowingly or 
intentionally misreported payroll. 
{¶ 48} Accordingly, because the bureau failed to adequately explain its 
order applying the audit adjustments retroactively and back billing Aaron’s for $1.6 
million and because the bureau’s own e-mails and the conclusion of its fraud unit 
demonstrate that no evidence exists to prove that Aaron’s knowingly or 
intentionally misrepresented its payroll,  I would conclude that the bureau abused 
its discretion in retroactively applying its reclassification order, reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals, and grant the writ to compel the bureau to vacate 
its order applying the employee reclassification retroactively and to remove the 
back billing on that account. 
LANZINGER and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Fisher & Phillips, L.L.P., Daniel P. O’Brien, and Nicole H. Farley, for 
appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________