Case Name: The State ex rel. Piotrowski, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-05-31
Citations: 88 Ohio St. 3d 556
Docket Number: No. 98-2519
Parties: The State ex rel. Piotrowski, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 88
Pages: 556–558

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Piotrowski, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Piotrowski v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 556.]
(No. 98-2519
Submitted April 26, 2000
Decided May 31, 2000.)
Ticktin, Baron, Koepper & Co., L.P.A., and Harold Ticktin, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Rademaker, Matty, McClelland & Greve and Kirk R. Henrikson, for appellee Kennecott Corporation.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Mandamus cannot issue when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50, 451 N.E.2d 225. In this case, claimant had numerous opportunities to appeal orders denying her a change of election. Instead, she responded by repeatedly refiling the same motion, which only complicated further an already convoluted administrative path.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.