Court Opinion

ID: 9815904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:30:36.463685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:40.882078
License: Public Domain

(No. 82AP-120 — Decided July 1, 1982.)
On the Merits
Norris, J.
Relator, Sears, Roebuck & Company, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Industrial Commission to vacate its orders of August 4,1981 and November 5, 1981, and to reinstate its prior decision finding that the claimant, Dana E. Artrip (a respondent herein), does not have any permanent disability.
In the August 4, 1981 order, the Industrial Commission, relying upon R.C. 4123.522, found that an order of the commission which resulted from a January 29, 1981 hearing should be vacated because the claimant’s attorney had been informed by the chief of its appeals division that the hearing was cancelled and claimant’s attorney was entitled to believe that notice of the hearing was thus invalid. The vacated order had granted relator’s application for reconsideration and had found that the claimant did not have any permanent disability.
Relator’s application for reconsideration was then heard again on November 5, 1981, with both the claimant and relator being represented, and was denied. Denial of the application for reconsideration had the effect of affirming an earlier award of benefits for ten percent permanent partial disability.
Relator complains that the commission had no power under R.C. 4123.522 to set aside the order granting its application for reconsideration for the reason that relief under that section is available only where notice of a hearing has been mailed but not received. While relator may be correct in this contention, the *257commission nevertheless had the power under R.C. 4123.52 to determine that a hearing had been held which in fact had been cancelled, and that the application for reconsideration should be reheard on its merits with both parties present, and to then vacate the order that resulted from the hearing where only one party had been represented.
Accordingly, the commission did not abuse its discretion in vacating the prior order, and relator has failed to carry its burden of showing a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus. See State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141 [40 O.O.2d 141].
For the foregoing reasons, the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Whiteside, P.J., and Moyer, J., concur.