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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 23, 2003-Ohio-4832.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WILSON, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 100 Ohio St.3d 23, 2003-Ohio-
4832.] 
Civil procedure — Workers’ compensation — Civ.R. 53(E)(3), applied — Court 
of appeals’ denial of writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2002-1574 — Submitted August 26, 2003 — Decided September 24, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 01AP-928, 2002-
Ohio-4289. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Angela Wilson, contested the start date of benefits to 
her minor child, Michael Hickman, following the death of his father, Chris D. 
Witt, in an industrial accident.  Dissatisfied with the decision of appellee 
Industrial Commission of Ohio, she petitioned the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County for a writ of mandamus. 
{¶2} 
The court of appeals referred the matter to a magistrate, who on 
March 15, 2002, issued a report recommending that the writ be denied.  Thirty-
four days later, appellant filed objections to that report.  The commission 
responded with a motion to strike the objections as untimely and appellant made 
no reply.  The court granted that motion and ultimately adopted the magistrate’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. 
{¶3} 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶4} 
Appellant’s arguments derive directly from the conclusions of law 
provided in the magistrate’s decision.  Appellant, however, did not timely object 
to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a) requires.  Thus, pursuant to Civ.R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
53(E)(3)(b) and State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 52, 723 N.E.2d 571, we can proceed no further. 
{¶5} 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
George S. Maley, for appellant. 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
__________________