State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 517, 2009-Ohio1674.] THE STATE EX REL. FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Findlay Industries v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 517, 2009-Ohio-1674.] Civil procedure Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) Objections to magistrate s decision necessary to preserve issue for appeal. (No. 2008-0700 Submitted April 8, 2009 Decided April 15, 2009.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 07AP-368. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Findlay Industries, filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio had abused its discretion by failing to consider certain evidence that it had submitted in connection with Shirley Ruark s application for permanent total disability compensation. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the matter was referred to a magistrate, who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate found that Findlay Industries evidence had not been timely submitted, relieving the commission of any duty to consider it. Findlay Industries filed no objections to that magistrate s report, which the court of appeals adopted as its own. {¶ 2} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. {¶ 3} Appellant s arguments derive directly from the conclusions of law provided in the magistrate s decision. Appellant, however, did not object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) requires. Thus, pursuant to that rule and State SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 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. {¶ 4} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ William W. Johnston, for appellant. Richard A. Cordray, Attorney General, and Colleen C. Erdman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal and L. Frederick Sommer III, for appellee Shirley Ruark. ______________________ 2
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.
