Court Opinion

ID: 9390536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 18:06:59.605362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.256642
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State ex rel. Aero Pallets, Inc. v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 2023-Ohio-1384.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Aero Pallets, Inc.,                        :

                 Relator,                                :                  No. 19AP-829

v.                                                       :            (REGULAR CALENDAR)

State of Ohio Bureau of                                  :
Workers’ Compensation et al.,
                                                         :
                 Respondents.
                                                         :

                                             D E C I S I O N

                                       Rendered on April 27, 2023

                 On brief: McNamara Demczyk Co., LPA, and Sidney N.
                 Freeman, for relator.

                 On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and John R. Smart,
                 for respondent Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

                                              IN MANDAMUS

MENTEL, J.
        {¶ 1} Relator, Aero Pallets, Inc. (“Aero Pallets”), brought this original action
seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
(“BWC”), to vacate its final order affirming the transfer of the outstanding workman’s
compensation liability of Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc. (“Slats & Nails”), to Aero Pallets under
Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-02. BWC effected the transfer of Slats & Nails’ “rights and
obligations” to Aero Pallets under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-02(C) after determining that it
was “essentially the same employer” as Slats & Nails under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-13(D).
Aero Pallets seeks a writ ordering BWC to vacate its orders and adopt a finding that the two
corporate entities are unrelated, as stated in its August 23, 2017 protest letter. (Dec. 10,
2019 Compl. at 8.)
No. 19AP-829                                                                                 2

       {¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
this matter was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate recommends that we deny the
request for a writ of mandamus. He concluded that BWC did not abuse its discretion
because “ample evidence in the * * * record” supported the agency’s determination that the
transfer was voluntary. (Aug. 26, 2021 Mag.’s Decision at 10.)
       {¶ 3} Aero     Pallets   filed   the   following   objection   to   the     magistrate’s
recommendation:
              The magistrate erred, to the prejudice of Relator, by finding
              and concluding that Aero Pallets ‘wholly succeeded’ Slats &
              Nails Pallets, Inc. * * * either for the purpose of assuming Slats
              & Nails’ outstanding obligation to the Respondent, * * * or [as
              a basis for determining] Aero Pallets’ experience rating.
(Sept. 9, 2021 Obj. at 1-2.)

       {¶ 4} In support of the objection, Aero Pallets asserts that it “neither expressly
[nor] impliedly agreed to assume Slats & Nails’ obligations,” and describes the
arrangements between the entities and their respective owners as “straightforward, arms-
length transactions, customary between business persons.” Id. at 3. In support of its
position, Aero Pallets cites three cases of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
       {¶ 5} In the first, State ex rel. K&D Group, Inc. v. Buehrer, 135 Ohio St.3d 257,
2013-Ohio-734, the court held that BWC had abused its discretion when it transferred part
of one property management company’s “experience rating,” used to determine the rate of
workman’s compensation employment premium under R.C. 4132.32(C), to another entity
after BWC had determined that the newer entity was a successor in interest. Id. at ¶ 17. The
court held that BWC had abused its discretion because there was “no evidence” that the
older entity had “voluntarily transferred the business of managing the apartment complex”
to the newer entity. Id. at ¶ 16. BWC had cited the fact that the newer entity had “hired
some former employees” of the older entity, “assumed management of the leases that the
prior apartment-complex owner had with its tenants,” and shared the same classification
number under BWC’s categorization of business types. Id. According to the Supreme
Court, “these facts [were] not sufficient” to show a voluntary transfer of business
operations, particularly where the new entity had “contracted with the new owner,” a third
party, “to assume management of the existing apartment complex.” Id.
No. 19AP-829                                                                                  3

       {¶ 6} K&D Group, Inc. is instructive because it applies the proper standard of
review to BWC’s order, which must be upheld as long as some evidence in the record
supports it. State ex rel. Ugicom Ents. v. Morrison, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-895, 2021-Ohio-
1269, ¶ 5; State ex rel. G&S Metal Prods. Co. v. Ryan, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-387, 2010-Ohio-
3835, ¶ 49 (stating that a BWC “finding” that “is supported by some evidence ends the
inquiry”). Because there was “no evidence” to support BWC’s finding, K&D Group, Inc.
held that the agency had abused its discretion. K&D Group, Inc. at ¶ 16. Here, in contrast,
the magistrate cited a plethora of evidence supporting the BWC determination, including:
“a functional transfer of use for all equipment and real estate assets,” the “wholesale
transfer of labor,” and the “significant balance due” incurred by the Slats & Nails, which
had “almost entirely disregarded its obligation to provide workers’ compensation coverage
to its employees.” (Mag.’s Decision at 9.) Aero Pallets does not address the operative
standard of review and instead offers an alternative interpretation of the evidence, one that
BWC rejected. However, as the magistrate explained, BWC “was not obligated to prefer
this version of events when assessing whether the transfer was a voluntary assumption of
the previous employer’s business operation.” Id. at 10.
       {¶ 7} In addition, the K&D Group, Inc. employer complained only about the
unemployment premium rate BWC had decided upon. In that case, the prior employer did
not accrue over half a million dollars in liability to BWC before the transfer, as Slats & Nails
did before it shuttered. This fact casts a significant shadow over the transactions between
Slats & Nails and Aero Pallets, notwithstanding relator’s attempt to characterize them as
“perfectly legal and common business practices * * * to manage risk, financial and
retirement planning.” (Obj. at 5.)
       {¶ 8} Second, Aero Pallets cites a plurality opinion of the Supreme Court, State ex
rel. Daily Servs., L.L.C. v. Morrison, 154 Ohio St.3d 498, 2018-Ohio-2151, in support of the
objection. However, a plurality opinion of the Supreme Court “is of limited precedential
effect.” State v. Banks, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-69, 2011-Ohio-4252, ¶ 7. A syllabus receiving
four votes is “the only law emanating from” a plurality opinion. Hedrick v. Motorists Mut.
Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St.3d 42, 44 (1986), overruled on other grounds by Martin v. Midwestern
Group Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d 478 (1994), as stated in Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods.
Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 2010-Ohio-1027, ¶ 89. Morrison contains no syllabus law.
No. 19AP-829                                                                                4

Furthermore, Morrison interpreted a version of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-02(C) in effect
before 2010 that had been superseded by the date of the opinion’s release. See Morrison at
¶ 16 (discussing “former” version of the rule.) Accordingly, Morrison provides little
guidance for the case at hand.
       {¶ 9} Finally, Aero Pallets argues that the magistrate erred by failing to discuss the
common law definition of successor-in-interest applied in State ex rel. Crosset Co. v.
Conrad, 87 Ohio St.3d 467 (2000). In that case, the “issue presented” was “whether a
corporation that purchases the foreclosed assets of another corporation through an
intermediary bank may be held liable for the outstanding workers’ compensation claims
costs incurred during the predecessor’s participation in a retrospective-rating plan.” Id. at
471.   BWC had attempted to hold the purchaser liable for the previous entity’s
“retrospective-rating claims costs” after finding that it had “wholly succeeded” the previous
entity. Id. at 469-70. The Supreme Court reviewed BWC’s finding under R.C. 4123.32(B),
which states: “if any employer transfers a business in whole or in part or otherwise
reorganizes the business, the successor in interest shall assume, in proportion to the extent
of the transfer, * * * the employer’s account and shall continue the payment of all
contributions due.”1 (Emphasis deleted.) Id. at 470-71. Crosset held that the purchaser
could not be held liable because the language of the statute contemplated only “a voluntary
act of the employer and not the involuntary transfer of the employer’s business through an
intermediary bank.” Id. at 471. Because the statute was “inapplicable” and the purchaser
was “not a ‘successor in interest,’ ” the court “turn[ed] to common-law principles of
successor liability to determine [the] obligations” of the purchaser. Id. at 475. After
applying the definition of successor liability stated in Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied
Companies, 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (1993), the court concluded that the purchaser was “not
liable for the retrospective-rating claims costs” of the prior entity under the common law
either. Id.
       {¶ 10} Contrary to Aero Pallets’ assertion, the facts of this case are not “materially
identical” to Crosset. (Obj. at 8.) That case hinged upon the involuntary nature of the
transfer, which occurred after the original entity’s “assets had been seized by” two banks

1 When Crosset was decided, this provision was numbered as R.C. 4123.32(D), but has since been
renumbered and now appears in subsection (B). 2013 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 493.
No. 19AP-829                                                                                5

before being sold to the purchaser. Crosset at 471. These third-party actions demonstrated
that the employer did not “transfer[] a business in whole or in part” to the purchasing entity
under R.C. 4123.32(D). Id. at 473. Thus, neither the statute nor BWC’s implementing
regulations applied. Id. at 475. Aero Pallets has not explained why it was error to apply the
statute or regulations in this case, where some evidence supports the BWC’s finding that
Aero Pallets is the successor to Slats & Nails.
       {¶ 11} Furthermore, as Aero Pallets acknowledges, the common law test of Welco
Industries, Inc. applied in Crosset “is the same test” stated in Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-
02(B) and (C)(2). (Obj. at 8.) Compare Welco Industries, Inc., syllabus (“A corporation
that purchases the assets of another is not liable for the contractual liabilities of its
predecessor corporation unless (1) the buyer expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such
liability; (2) the transaction amounts to a de facto consolidation or merger; (3) the buyer
corporation is merely a continuation of the seller corporation; or (4) the transaction is
entered into fraudulently for the purpose of escaping liability”) with Ohio Adm.Code 4123-
17-02(C)(2). Because the common law test Aero Pallets argues for applying has been
codified in an administrative regulation, we see no error in the magistrate’s decision not to
apply it. The crucial issue, nowhere discussed in Aero Pallets’ objection, is the quantum of
evidence that supports the conclusion of BWC, as explained by the magistrate, that Aero
Pallets wholly succeeded Slats & Nails. Because some evidence supports the conclusion, it
was not arrived at in error. The objection is overruled.
       {¶ 12} Having overruled relator’s objection, we adopt the decision of the magistrate
in its entirety and deny the request for a writ of mandamus.
                                                                 Writ of mandamus denied.

                     DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
                             _________________
No. 19AP-829                                                                            6

                                           APPENDIX

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Aero Pallets, Inc.,                :

               Relator,                          :

v.                                               :                   No. 19AP-829

State of Ohio Bureau of                          :                (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Workers’ Compensation et al.,
                                                 :
               Respondents.
                                                 :

                           MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION

                                    Rendered on August 26, 2021

               McNamara Demczyk Co., LPA, and Sidney N. Freeman, for
               relator.

               Dave Yost, Attorney General, and John R. Smart, for
               respondent Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

                                         IN MANDAMUS

       {¶ 13} Relator, Aero Pallets, Inc., seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent
Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) to vacate orders of the administrator’s
designee and the adjudicating committee that deemed relator the successor to Slats and
Nails Pallets, Inc. (“Slats and Nails”) for the latter company’s unpaid obligations to BWC
and for its workers’ compensation experience rating.

Findings of Fact:
No. 19AP-829                                                                                 7

       {¶ 14} 1. Slats and Nails is or was a wood pallet manufacturing business operating
at 10465 Sandyville Ave. SE, East Sparta, Ohio. The sole shareholder of Slats and Nails at
the time of incorporation on May 11, 2011 was David Fioretto. (Stip. at 274.)
       {¶ 15} 2. Slats and Nails applied for workers’ compensation coverage effective
May 2011. (Stip. at 36.) According to the BWC’s records, coverage lapsed due to non-
payment effective December 1, 2011 and was never reinstated. (Stip. at 274.)
       {¶ 16} 3. BWC asserts that the policy for Slats and Nails has an unpaid balance due
of over $600,000 for non-complying claims and unpaid premiums. (Stip. at 274.)
       {¶ 17} 4. Slats and Nails was itself formed to take up the activity of a previous pallet
business operating at the same location which became insolvent and was subject to a forced
sale by the United States Internal Revenue Service for back taxes. By order issued February
16, 2018, BWC found that Slats and Nails’ experience and liability would not follow from
the previous operator at the cite because of the involuntary nature of the sale. BWC allowed
this clean slate for the new operator despite the fact that there were significant connections
and overlaps between the principals of the new company, including David Fioretto, and the
previous owners. (Stip. at 274.)
       {¶ 18} 5. Concurrently with his incorporation of Slats and Nails and assumption of
manufacturing operators at the East Sparta plant, David Fioretto established two limited
liability corporations in Ohio: S & N Holdings Group, LLC, which owned the real estate and
buildings for the pallet operation, and S & N Equipment Leasing, LLC, which owned related
equipment including saws, nailers, and vehicles. David Fioretto is the sole owner of both
LLCs. (Stip. at 274.)
       {¶ 19} 6. Paul Robert Collier is the sole shareholder of Aero Pallets, Inc.,
incorporated in Ohio on July 20, 2015. (Stip. at 30.) Collier testified in administrative
proceedings that he was the office manager for Slats and Nails at the time he formed Aero
Pallets, but his objective for Aero Pallets was to serve as an independent pallet broker
providing customers with custom-built pallets from various manufacturers, including but
not limited to Slats and Nails.
       {¶ 20} 7. Aero Pallets applied on October 6, 2015 for Ohio workers’ compensation
coverage stating the business as “Wholesale Trade Agent, brokering pallets.” (Stip. at 32.)
No. 19AP-829                                                                                 8

The application did not describe any employees operating in manufacturing positions, but
only two employees engaged in office work. (Stip. at 32.)
       {¶ 21} 8. Collier testified in administrative proceedings that continuing financial
difficulties for Slats and Nails compromised his ability to secure custom pallets for his Aero
Pallets customers. He was forced to contemplate entering the manufacturing business
himself to fulfill his outstanding orders.
       {¶ 22} 9. Aero Pallets entered into an equipment lease with S & N Equipment
Leasing, LLC on February 29, 2016 for the use of the pallet manufacturing equipment at
the East Sparta plant. (Stip. at 2.) The lease was for a ten-year term at a monthly rental
rate of $19,000 with a purchase option of $5,000 at expiration of the lease. (Stip. at 2.)
       {¶ 23} 10. Concurrently, Aero Pallets entered into a real estate commercial lease
with S & N Holdings Group, LLC for the East Sparta plant property. Again, the term was
for ten years at a monthly rental of $9,000. (Stip. at 2.) There was no purchase option at
the end of the real estate lease.
       {¶ 24} 11. Concerned that the business undertaken by Aero Pallets constituted an
attempt to continue the business of Slats and Nails while avoiding prior workers’
compensation obligations, and prompted in part by an injury and resulting claim sustained
by a manufacturing employee at the East Sparta plant, BWC undertook an investigation.
BWC’s Special Investigations Department produced a 12-page report dated June 2, 2016
with voluminous documentary attachments. (Stip. at 28.) The report outlines the close
connections between principals, owners, and employees of various companies involved,
and the often-indistinguishable manufacturing operations of Slats and Nails and Aero
Pallets.
       {¶ 25} 12. The investigator’s report notes that according to payroll records, 35 Slats
and Nails employees simultaneously worked for that company and Aero Pallets in the first
quarter of 2016. During this period, Aero Pallets reported two clerical employees for
workers’ compensation coverage with no duties outside of the office and payroll in the
amount of $61,620. (Stip. at 22.) In the same period, an injured worker claim was filed for
an injury occurring on April 15, 2016 while employed by Aero Pallets. The worker suffered
a partial amputation of an index finger while operating heavy machinery stacking pallets in
the plant. (Stip. at 22.) Payroll stubs for this employee indicated a transfer from Slats and
No. 19AP-829                                                                              9

Nails on or about April 3, 2016 to Aero Pallets as employer. (Stip. at 22.) Aero Pallets did
not seek coverage for production employees in this period.
       {¶ 26} 13. Investigators noted numerous vehicles owned by S & N Equipment
Leasing and bearing either Aero Pallets or Slats and Nails identification painted on them.
(Stip. at 20.) The investigator concluded as follows:
                 The above and below facts show that Aero Pallets is a pallet
                 manufacturing business located at the same location as Slats
                 and Nails Pallets, sharing the same phone number, co-
                 mingling operations within the same location (manufacturing
                 and office), transferring employees from Slats and Nails Pallets
                 to Aero Pallets with the current Owner of Aero Pallets (Paul
                 Collier Jr) being a former employee of Slats and Nails Pallets/S
                 & N Pallets since at least 2007. In the 1st quarter 2016, 35 Slats
                 and Nails Pallets employees began working for Aero Pallets. Of
                 these 35, 34 also worked for [Slats] and Nails Pallets during the
                 same 1/16 quarter. The BWC U-3 advised there was no previous
                 policy and the business was not acquired.

(Stip. at 18.)

       {¶ 27} The investigator also noted co-mingled operations between Aero Pallets and
another company, Aero Transportation, incorporated in Ohio April 28, 2015. The sole
owner of Aero Transportation, whose trucks were seen parked at the Aero Pallets’ loading
dock at the East Sparta plant, was one Miklos Fioretto, who formerly was president of Slats
and Nails. (Stip. at 24.) Miklos Fioretto also earned W-2 wages from Aero Pallets and was
the highest paid W-2 employee for Aero Pallets in 2015. (Stip. at 24.)
       {¶ 28} 14. By letter dated August 1, 2017, BWC informed Aero Pallets that the
application for a new workers’ compensation account for Aero Pallets would be refused
because it was a continuation of Slats and Nails business:
                 We received the Application for Ohio Workers’ Compensation
                 Coverage (U-3) you recently submitted for AERO PALLETS,
                 INC. Our records show you already have the BWC policy
                 referenced above. After further review of the information
                 provided on the application, we have determined that AERO
                 PALLETS, INC. is essentially the same employer as SLATS &
                 NAILS PALLETS INC. for workers’ compensation purposes.
                 We based this decision on the requirements of Ohio
                 Administrative Code Rule 4123-17-13. This rule controls the
                 making of the initial application for rating.
No. 19AP-829                                                                            10

              Because of this decision, we cannot process your recent
              application for workers’ compensation coverage. Please report
              work-related injuries and payroll, and pay your workers’
              compensation premium using the existing policy.

(Emphasis sic.) (Stip. at 102.)

       {¶ 29} 15. Aero Pallets protested its successor status for BWC purposes and, by
letter dated February 27, 2018, BWC maintained its position:
              We have reviewed your complaint requesting reversal of a
              combination between multiple entities of similar operations.
              Regrettably, we must deny your request. Our policy
              underwriting unit combined your existing policies after
              determining that the employers are essentially the same
              employer.

              The Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rule 4123-17-13(D)
              requires us to evaluate an employer’s application for new
              coverage to determine if that employer is essentially the same
              employer for which coverage had previously been provided,
              regardless of entity type. The policy underwriting unit
              determined the employers are the same. Thus, we combined
              the policies to transfer the prior coverage pursuant to OAC rule
              4123-17-02.

       {¶ 30} 16. Aero Pallets requested a hearing before the adjudicating committee,
which heard the mater on July 26, 2018. (Stip. at 272.) The adjudicating committee heard
testimony from Collier and the BWC investigators. By order mailed October 26, 2018, the
adjudicating committee determined that Slats and Nails’ experience, rights, and obligations
would be transferred to Aero Pallets in the workers’ compensation program:
              The Committee finds there was a voluntary transfer of the
              pallet manufacturing business operation from Slats & Nails
              Pallets, Inc. to Aero Pallets, Inc. This scenario is on the more
              complex end of the maneuvering some business owners do
              when effectively transferring a business operation to another.
              In February 2016, Aero Pallets, Inc. began operating the same
              business as Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc. An equipment lease was
              used instead of a purchase agreement. The lease terms operate
              as a financing vehicle for the business operation. The lease was
              for a term of ten years at the monthly rental rate of $19,000.00
              for a total amount of $2,280,000.000 [sic], with a purchase
              option of only $5,000.00 at the expiration of the lease. The
              lease terms when Mr. Fioretto leased the equipment from his
No. 19AP-829                                                                    11

           equipment leasing company (S&N Equipment Leasing, LLC) to
           his operating company (Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc.) was $2,500
           initially with monthly rent of only $4,500 after January 1, 2014.

           The owner of Aero Pallets, Inc., Bob Collier, stated he had
           worked for S and N Pallets, Inc. and Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc.
           for twenty to twenty-five years and was a manager of the
           company. The Committee asked Mr. Collier how exactly he
           started a pallet broker business in 2015, Aero Pallets, Inc., that
           would be competing with Slats & Nails Pallets while he stilled
           [sic] worked there. Mr. Collier stated that some of Slats & Nails
           Pallets customers would not do business with them because
           they did not have a Certificate of Ohio Workers’ Compensation.
           The apparent solution to that problem was to funnel the pallets
           orders on paper through Aero Pallets, Inc. None of the
           documents to support Aero Pallets, Inc. actually operated as a
           pallet brokerage were submitted, but they also are not needed
           to decide the issue. What is evident from the leasing documents
           is that Aero Pallets took over the business operation in
           February of 2016. What transpired was tantamount to a
           voluntary transfer of a business operation. The business
           operation transferred from one operating company to another
           operating company.

           When a business is transferred in whole, the purchaser
           (successor) inherits the rate and liability of the business it has
           acquired. The Supreme Court has held a “successor in interest”
           for workers’ compensation purposes “is simply a transferee of
           a business in whole or in part.” State ex rel. Lake Erie Constr.
           Co. v. Indus. Comm., 62 Ohio St.3d 81 (1991). The language of
           the statute clearly refers to a voluntary act of the employer.
           State ex rel. Valley Roofing v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’
           Compensation, 122 Ohio St.3d 275 at ¶ 5, quoting, State ex rel.
           Crosset Co., 87 Ohio St.3d at 471.

           When Mr. Collier took over the business operation he should
           have contacted the bureau and addressed the outstanding
           liabilities of Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc. before executing the
           Commercial Lease and Equipment Lease Agreement.
           “Whenever one employer succeeds another employer in the
           operation of a business in whole or in part, the successor shall
           notify the bureau of the succession.” Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-
           02(C)(1). There is a process in place where the bureau will
           notify the parties of the outstanding obligations. Notifying the
           bureau of the transfer naturally would have had an impact on
           the value of the business, but for good reason. The State
           Insurance Fund has responded to nineteen noncomplying
No. 19AP-829                                                                         12

              claims of Slats & Nails Pallets, Inc. and paid benefits well into
              the six figures. Outstanding liabilities must be addressed
              because the successor becomes liable. This is routine due
              diligence that any prudent business owner must conduct.
              Otherwise, the owner of a business such as Mr. Fioretto, who
              violated the law by operating without coverage and failing to
              pay premiums obtains financial benefit when the business
              concern probably was not worth multi-millions due to the
              outstanding liabilities to the bureau.

(Stip. at 275-76.)

       {¶ 31} 17. The administrator’s designee held a hearing on May 23, 2019 and issued
an order mailed July 30, 2019 upholding the adjudicating committee’s determination. The
administrator’s designee concluded that, pursuant to R.C. 4123.32 and Ohio Adm.Code
4123-17-13, BWC had correctly determined that Aero Pallets was, for workers’
compensation purposes, the same employer as Slats and Nails, and should inherit the
predecessor company’s risk history and unpaid obligations:
              As the Adjudicating Committee pointed out, the facts
              substantiate a voluntary transfer of the pallet manufacturing
              business from Slats & Nails Pallets to Aero Pallets. While BWC
              agrees the parties did not enter into a purchase agreement, they
              effectuated the voluntary transfer via a 10-year equipment
              lease and real estate lease under terms far less favorable than
              S&N Equipment Leasing, LLC and Slats & Nails Pallets had
              negotiated. Analyzing this factor, in conjunction with the facts
              discussed above, BWC’s combination of the policies was
              appropriate. Aero Pallets voluntarily assumed the business
              operations of Slats & Nails Pallets and Mr. Collier’s explanation
              that Aero Pallets would have gone out of business had it not
              begun pallet manufacturing does not negate the voluntariness
              of the transaction. To that point, Mr. Collier indicated he
              attempted to seek a separate manufacturer with an entity called
              Pallet People, from which he initially bought pallets, but the
              arrangement did not work out and they parted ways. Aero
              Pallets cannot claim its initial industry pursuit was in pallet
              brokering, with the apparent outcome of assisting Slats & Nails
              Pallets to continue operating without workers’ compensation
              coverage, and then claim it was later forced into pallet
              manufacturing by Slats & Nails Pallets’ closure to keep Aero
              Pallets’ broker business running.
No. 19AP-829                                                                             13

(July 30, 2019 order, omitted from stipulated administrative record and submitted as
Addendum to Rel.’s Brief.)

        {¶ 32} 18. Aero Pallets filed its complaint for a writ of mandamus on December 10,
2019.

Discussion and Conclusions of Law:
        {¶ 33} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, Aero Pallets must show a
clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of respondent BWC to
provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). In this case, Aero Pallets
must establish that the administrator’s designee’s order is contrary to law or constitutes a
gross abuse of discretion because it is not supported by any evidence in the administrative
record. State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76-79 (1986); State ex rel.
Ugicom Ent. v. Morrison, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-895, 2021-Ohio-1269.
        {¶ 34} R.C. 4123.32 defines the authority and obligation of BWC to exercise its
fiduciary duty to protect the state insurance fund when reviewing an employer’s initial
application for workers’ compensation coverage:
               The administrator of workers’ compensation, with the advice
               and consent of the bureau of workers’ compensation board of
               directors, shall adopt rules with respect to the collection,
               maintenance, and disbursements of the state insurance fund
               including all of the following:

               (A) A rule providing for ascertaining the correctness of any
               employer’s report of estimated or actual expenditure of wages
               and the determination and adjustment of proper premiums
               and the payment of those premiums by the employer;

               (B) Such special rules as the administrator considers necessary
               to safeguard the fund and that are just in the circumstances,
               covering the rates to be applied where one employer takes over
               the occupation or industry of another or where an employer
               first makes application for state insurance, and the
               administrator may require that if any employer transfers a
               business in whole or in part or otherwise reorganizes the
               business, the successor in interest shall assume, in proportion
               to the extent of the transfer, as determined by the
No. 19AP-829                                                                                 14

              administrator, the employer’s account and shall continue the
              payment of all contributions due under this chapter.

       {¶ 35} As required by R.C. 4123.32(B), BWC has promulgated rules governing the
review of application and determination of successorship status for businesses. Ohio
Adm.Code 4123-17-13(C) provides as follows:
              If the bureau determines, after reviewing the information
              submitted with the application provided for in paragraph (A)
              of this rule, that the employer was subject to division (B)(2) of
              section 4123.01 of the Revised Code but failed to comply with
              the law in matters of workers’ compensation coverage, the
              bureau shall notify the employer in writing of such a finding
              and request any additional information required to make a
              determination of the period for which the employer was not in
              compliance with the law. Upon such determination, the bureau
              shall notify the employer of the premium and assessments due
              for the period of noncompliance.

       {¶ 36} Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-02(B)(2) also addresses the transfer of the previous
employer’s risk experience:
              Where a legal entity having an established coverage or having
              had experience in the most recent experience period wholly
              succeeds one or more legal entities having established coverage
              or having had experience in the most recent experience period
              and at least one of the entities involved has a merit rating
              experience, the experience of all the involved entities shall be
              combined to establish the rate of the successor.

       {¶ 37} A successorship finding under these provisions is justified where the
subsequent employer has assumed the occupation or industry of the previous employer,
but the focus in such a determination is on the transfer of business operations or labor, not
concepts of corporate succession. K & D Group, Inc. v. Buehrer, 135 Ohio St.3d 257, 2013-
Ohio-734,¶ 13. Otherwise put, intervening corporate entities and distinctions are not
material to this analysis, and such succession does not require a strict transfer of assets. Id.
       {¶ 38} The magistrate concludes that there is evidence in the record to support the
administrator’s designee’s final determination in this matter. Moreover, because the
transaction under review involved a functional transfer of use for all equipment and real
estate assets from Slats and Nails to Aero Pallets, along with the more pertinent wholesale
transfer of labor, the decision in this case is not a particularly controversial one.
No. 19AP-829                                                                                15

       {¶ 39} The investigator’s report, which is not significantly contravened as to most of
its facts, established that the sole owner of Aero Pallets is a long-time employee of Slats and
Nails; that the business operates in the same location and with the same equipment; that
the manufacturing and transportation staff of Slats and Nails transferred en masse to Aero
Pallets; that Slats and Nails had a significant balance due and in fact almost entirely
disregarded its obligation to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its employees; and
that a transfer of business between closely-related parties resulted in an attempt to
extinguish those existing obligations. So intertwined were the two businesses at the time
of transfer that a claim by an injured employee resulted in a finding of overlap of payroll
and coverage and resulted in the same deficiently defined coverage as existed for employees
prior to the transfer.
       {¶ 40} While Aero Pallet’s owner gave alternative explanations for the transition
from Slats and Nails, BWC was not obligated to prefer this version of events when assessing
whether the transfer was a voluntary assumption of the previous employer’s business
operations. “So long as there is some evidence in the record to support the decision, the
bureau acted within its discretion and the granting of a writ of mandamus is not
warranted. State ex rel. Secreto v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 581, 582-583, 1997-Ohio-
29, 687 N.E.2d 715 (1997).” State ex rel. Daily Servs., L.L.C. v. Morrison, 154 Ohio St.3d
498, 2018-Ohio-2151, ¶ 17. Where the administrator’s designee issues an order that
itemizes and analyzes evidence supporting a finding that one employer has wholly
succeeded another with the purpose of evading responsibility for the prior employer’s
obligations under workers’ compensation law, no writ should issue. Id. at ¶ 26-27.
       {¶ 41} In short, there is ample evidence in the administrative record to support the
administrator’s designee’s conclusion that the transfer of the pallet manufacturing and
transportation operation from Slats and Nails to Aero Pallets was a voluntary transfer of
business between the two risks subject to statutory and regulatory rules requiring a transfer
of existing obligations and risk history. It is therefore the decision and recommendation of
the magistrate that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the administrator’s
designee and the requested writ of mandamus should be denied.
No. 19AP-829                                                                    16

                                           /S/ MAGISTRATE
                                            MARTIN L. DAVIS

                            NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

           Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as
           error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or
           legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a
           finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii),
           unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual
           finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).