Title: State ex rel. Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Co. v. Conrad

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Co. v. Conrad, 96 Ohio St.3d 340, 2002-
Ohio-4742.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL.WHITACRE-GREER FIREPROOFING COMPANY, APPELLANT, 
v. CONRAD, ADMR., BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Co. v. Conrad, 96 Ohio St.3d 
340, 2002-Ohio-4742.] 
Workers’ compensation — Mandamus sought ordering Bureau of Workers’ 
Compensation to reimburse relator-employer for six years of premium 
overpayments — Court of appeals’ denial of writ reversed and writ of 
mandamus issued ordering reimbursement of all funds improperly 
collected, when — “Premium” and “assessment,” construed — Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) does not bar full reimbursement of all funds 
wrongly taken by Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 
(No. 2001-0272 — Submitted June 26, 2002 — Decided September 25, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-956. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1978, appellant Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company became 
a self-insuring employer for purposes of the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act.  
See R.C. 4123.35(B).  On November 4, 1988, Whitacre-Greer cancelled its self-
insured status and returned to State Insurance Fund coverage.  R.C. 4123.35(A). 
{¶2} 
One year later, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 222 became law, creating, 
among other things, R.C. 4123.35(I)(2).1  143 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3197, 3328-
3330.  That provision stated: 
{¶3} 
“An employer who no longer is a self-insuring employer * * * 
shall continue to pay assessments for administrative costs and for the portion of 
                                                 
1 Now R.C. 4123.35(J)(2). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the surplus fund * * * that is not used for handicapped reimbursement, based upon 
paid compensation attributable to claims that occurred while the employer was a 
self-insured employer * * *.” 
{¶4} 
After Am.Sub.H.B. No. 222 became effective, appellee, Bureau of 
Workers’ Compensation, began billing these assessments to businesses such as 
Whitacre-Greer, that had been self-insured employers, but had reverted to the 
State Insurance Fund before the statute’s effective date.  In November 1994, 
however, the bureau’s Self-Insured Review Panel (“SIRP”) determined that R.C. 
4123.35(I) could be applied only prospectively.  The bureau nevertheless 
continued for the next two years to bill Whitacre-Greer for assessments.  All told, 
between November 1989 and June 1996, the bureau collected $141,344.65 in R.C. 
4123.35(I) assessments from Whitacre-Greer. 
{¶5} 
The bureau eventually discovered its mistake and issued a 
reimbursement to Whitacre-Greer for the last two years of assessments, totaling 
$36,501.  Seeking a refund for the entire six and one-half years of overpayment, 
Whitacre-Greer began what eventually became a two-year administrative battle.  
The SIRP ultimately concluded that Whitacre-Greer had been improperly billed 
for the entire period.  It then, however, applied Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C), 
which limits premium refunds to two years prior to discovery of the error.  This 
was despite SIRP’s concession that Whitacre-Greer might be correct in its 
arguments that the terms “assessment” and “premium” have different meanings. 
{¶6} 
Whitacre-Greer turned to the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the bureau to reimburse the entire 
overpayment.  Relying on its decision in State ex rel. ITT Grinell Corp. v. Conrad 
(Sept. 21, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-1078, the court refused to issue a writ 
of mandamus. 
{¶7} 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶8} 
The bureau concedes that for over six years it collected 
assessments from Whitacre-Greer to which it was not entitled.  The bureau 
nevertheless asserts that Whitacre-Greer is entitled to only two years of 
recoupment based on Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C). 
{¶9} 
The relevant provision directs: 
{¶10} “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.  No adjustments, however, 
shall be made in an employer’s account which result in reducing any amount of 
premium below the amount of contributions made by the employer to the fund for 
the periods involved, except in reference to adjustment for the semi-annual or 
adjustment periods ending within twenty-four months immediately prior to the 
beginning of the current payroll reporting period.  The twenty-four month period 
shall be determined by the date when such errors affecting the reports and the 
premium are brought to the attention of the bureau by an employer through 
written application for adjustment or from the date that the bureau provides 
written notice to the employer of the bureau’s intent to inspect, examine, or audit 
the employer’s records.” 
{¶11} Whitacre-Greer claims that Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) 
applies only to “premiums” and not the “assessment” at issue herein, rendering 
the provision inapplicable in this case.  The bureau in effect contends that the 
terms are synonymous—ignoring the SIRP’s earlier acknowledgement that the 
two words may have distinct meanings. 
{¶12} Neither the Administrative Code nor the Revised Code specifically 
defines “premium” or “assessment.”  The Revised Code does make clear, 
however, that a “premium” is a semiannual payment calculated from 
“classifications, rules and rates made and published by the administrator.”  R.C. 
4123.35(A).  On the other hand, the General Assembly uses the term 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
“assessments” to refer to many things.  For example, there are assessments for 
interest and for penalties (R.C. 4123.35[A]), for handicap reimbursements (R.C. 
4123.343[G]), for administrative costs (R.C. 4123.342), for the safety and hygiene 
fund (R.C. 4123.35[J]), and for the Disabled Workers’ Relief Fund (R.C. 
4123.411 and 4123.419). 
{¶13} Perhaps the best example of the General Assembly’s recognition 
that it draws a distinction between “premium” and “assessment” is in R.C. 
4123.25(A) and (B): 
{¶14} “(A) No employer shall knowingly misrepresent to the bureau of 
workers’ compensation the amount or classification of payroll upon which the 
premium under this chapter is based.  Whoever violates this division shall be 
liable to the state in an amount determined by the administrator of workers’ 
compensation * * *. 
{¶15} “(B)  No self-insuring employer shall knowingly misrepresent the 
amount of paid compensation paid by such employer for purposes of the 
assessments provided under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code 
as required by section 4123.35 of the Revised Code.” 
{¶16} If “premiums” and “assessments” have the same meaning then 
R.C. 4123.25(B) is redundant.  This is contrary to a basic rule of statutory 
construction that “words in statutes should not be construed to be redundant.”  E. 
Ohio Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 295, 299, 530 N.E.2d 
875.  This lends strong support for the assertion that the two terms have distinct 
meanings.  Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-17(C) is indeed inapplicable and does not 
bar full reimbursement of all funds wrongly taken by the bureau. 
{¶17} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and a writ of 
mandamus is issued ordering reimbursement of all funds improperly collected. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ allowed. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Day, Ketterer, Raley, Wright & Rybolt, Ltd., Darrell N. Markijohn and 
Robert J. McBride, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________