State ex rel. First Natl. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. First National Supermarkets, Inc., Appellee, v. Industrial 2 Commission of Ohio et al., Appellants. 3 [Cite as State ex rel. First Natl. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 4 _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 5 Workers compensation -- Handicap reimbursement for temporary 6 total disability compensation -- Request for reimbursement 7 made after company opts out of program for outlays made 8 before the opt-out date -- Industrial Commission abuses its 9 discretion in denying reimbursement. 10 (No. 94-1418--Submitted January 9, 1996--Decided March 1, 1996.) 11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 12 93APD08-1203. 13 Appellee, First National Supermarkets, Inc. ( FNS ), is a self-insured 14 employer. In 1983, an FNS worker, who was a handicapped worker within 15 the meaning of R.C. 4123.343, sustained an industrial injury. FNS, in turn, 16 filed for handicap reimbursement for the compensation and benefits paid as 17 a result. A seventy-percent reimbursement was granted by appellant 18 Industrial Commission of Ohio. 1 Effective August 22, 1986, statutory amendments to R.C. 4123.343 2 significantly changed the handicap reimbursement system. Am. Sub. S.B. 3 No. 307, 141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 718. One of these changes afforded, for the 4 first time, an opportunity for self-insured employers to opt out of the 5 handicap reimbursement program. R.C. 4123.343(G), 141 Ohio Laws, Part 6 I, 745. 7 8 9 On November 22, 1989, appellant Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation, wrote to FNS and stated: Our records indicate that your company has not executed an election 10 to withdraw from the handicap reimbursement program. If you would like 11 to withdraw from the handicap reimbursement program, effective January 1, 12 1990, please complete the election form appended *** no later than 13 December 31, 1989. *** Please be advised that these elections to withdraw 14 are irrevocable. Any claim payments you make through December 31, 15 1989, that are eligible for handicap reimbursement, must be submitted on C- 16 174[s] and must also be received by December 31, 1989. *** 17 18 By a form dated December 19, 1989, FNS informed the bureau that it was withdrawing from the program effective January 1, 1990. 2 1 In November 1990 and again in July 1991, FNS submitted to the 2 bureau C-174 Self-Insured Semi-Annual Report of Claim Payments forms 3 that sought handicap reimbursement for temporary total disability 4 compensation paid from March 31, 1989 through December 7, 1990. The 5 commission denied reimbursement. 6 FNS filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 7 Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in 8 denying reimbursement. The appellate court found that FNS could not be 9 reimbursed for expenditures made after the opt-out date. FNS was, 10 however, entitled to reimbursement for expenditures made while FNS was 11 participating in the program. The court wrote: 12 We acknowledge that the commission informed self-insured 13 employers who opted out that the employers needed to file applications for 14 reimbursement prior to the opt-out date or lose the right to reimbursement. 15 However, we are unwilling to make a company s right to reimbursement 16 contingent solely on the date the paperwork is received by the commission. 17 This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 18 Greiner, Carolin & Spector and Thomas M. Carolin, for appellee. 3 1 2 3 Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants. Per Curiam. FNS did not file a cross-appeal with respect to the lower 4 court s denial of reimbursement for expenditures made after FNS s January 5 1, 1990 opt-out. Only one question is, therefore, presented: Was the court 6 of appeals correct in finding FNS eligible for reimbursement of 7 expenditures made prior to opt-out even though the applications for 8 reimbursement were not made until after FNS had left the handicap 9 program? For the reasons to follow, we agree with the decision of the court 10 of appeals. 11 The commission s denial of reimbursement is premised on State ex 12 rel. First Natl. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 13 582, 639 N.E.2d 1185. That decision, however, involved the employer s 14 request for reimbursement for expenditures arising after opt-out. In this 15 case, FNS seeks reimbursement for outlays made before opt-out--when the 16 employer was still actively participating in the handicap reimbursement 17 program. Accordingly, the earlier decision does not control and does not 18 bar reimbursement for FNS s preopt-out expenses. 4 1 The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 2 3 4 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 5 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
