Title: State ex rel. Johnson 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. Johnson v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5676.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-5676 
THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. RYAN, ADMR., ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5676.] 
Civil procedure — Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) — Objections to magistrate’s decision 
necessary to preserve issue for appeal. 
(No. 2010-0505 — Submitted November 16, 2010 — Decided  
November 24, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 08AP-1006. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The Industrial Commission of Ohio determined that appellant, 
Olivia Johnson, was not the common-law wife of the late Silas Johnson and thus 
could not receive death benefits arising from the occupational disease that 
claimed his life.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin County upheld that decision 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
and denied Johnson’s request for a writ of mandamus.  Johnson now appeals to 
this court as of right. 
{¶ 2} In the course of the proceedings below, the matter was referred to a 
magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of 
Appeals.  The magistrate, in turn, issued a decision, including findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  Johnson filed no objections to this report. 
{¶ 3} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) specifically prohibits a party from 
“assign[ing] as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any finding of fact or legal 
conclusion, * * * unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual 
finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”  Johnson’s 
arguments derive directly from the conclusions of law in the magistrate’s 
decision, yet she did not object to them.  Accordingly, we can proceed no further.  
State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 517, 2009-Ohio-
1674, 905 N.E.2d 1202; State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 23, 
2003-Ohio-4832, 795 N.E.2d 662; State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. 
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 723 N.E.2d 571. 
{¶ 4} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Podor Law Firm and Dustin S. Lewis, for appellant. 
Timothy J. Krantz, for appellee Ford Motor Company. 
Sammon & Bolmeyer Co., L.P.A., and Albert C. Sammon, for appellee 
Jillian Johnson. 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees Marsha Ryan and Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
_____________________