Title: State ex rel. Chaffins v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. CHAFFINS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; 
HAYES ALBION CORPORATION, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Chaffins v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Award of wage loss compensation by Industrial 
Commission — Possibility of unspecified error by commission not a proper 
basis for the exercise of reconsideration jurisdiction. 
(No. 95-2303 — Submitted June 10, 1998 — Decided July 1, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD09-1380. 
 
On October 29, 1991, appellant-claimant, Linda S. Chaffins, applied for 
wage loss compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(B).  A regional board of review 
granted claimant’s motion on August 2, 1993, and staff hearing officers of the 
Industrial Commission of Ohio affirmed on October 6, 1993. 
 
Claimant’s employer, appellee, Hayes Albion Corporation, moved the 
commission for reconsideration.  Reconsideration was initially denied by a staff 
hearing officer as “the request [does] not meet any of the criteria set forth in 
Industrial Commission Resolution R-92-1-3(D)(1)(a) or (b).”  The commission, 
however, vacated its order of October 6, 1993 and granted reconsideration “based 
on the possibility of an error in the previous Industrial Commission order.”  
Reconsideration on the merits resulted in a denial of claimant’s wage loss 
application. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in both 
granting reconsideration and subsequently denying wage loss compensation.  The 
court of appeals ruled that the commission did not abuse its discretion in granting 
reconsideration.  It did, however, find that the commission failed to specifically 
address claimant’s eligibility for wage loss compensation for a brief closed period.  
 
2
The court granted the writ in part, and returned the cause to the commission for 
further consideration of that issue.  The rest of the requested writ was denied. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Thomas J. Schaffer, for appellant. 
 
Chernesky, Heyman & Kress and Melanie R. Mackin, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In State ex rel. Nicholls v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 454, 692 N.E.2d 188, we held that the possibility of unspecified error is not 
a proper basis for the exercise of reconsideration jurisdiction.  The commission, 
therefore, abused its discretion in vacating the August 2, 1993 regional board and 
October 6, 1993 staff hearing officers’ orders in which wage loss compensation 
was awarded.  Given this determination, we find it unnecessary to address 
claimant’s remaining propositions. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the writ is granted. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.