State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Oryshkewych - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Yitzchak E. Gold, Assistant Court
Reporter. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your
comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. LTV Steel Company v. Oryshkewych et al.
[Cite as State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Oryshkewych
(1992), Ohio St.3d .]
Prohibition -- Writ will not issue to prevent Industrial
Commission from rehearing widow's application to recover
workers' compensation benefits for a death by suicide,
when.
(No. 92-1285 -- Submitted November 24, 1992 -- Decided
December 11, 1992.)
In Prohibition.
On Motion for Summary Judgment.
The decedent, Perry W. Dennison, sustained several
injuries while in the course of and arising from his employment
with relator, LTV Steel Company. In 1981, the decedent killed
himself. The widow-respondent, Gayle Dennison, alleging that
decedent's suicide was injury-induced, timely filed a claim for
death benefits with respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio.
The death-benefits claim was denied administratively. The
widow's appeals to both the common pleas and appellate courts
were unsuccessful. Her motion to certify the record to this
court was denied in 1986.
In 1991, Borbely v. Prestole Everlock, Inc. (1991), 57
Ohio St.3d 67, 565 N.E.2d 575, relaxed the requirements
necessary to establish a compensable suicide. Shortly
thereafter, respondent moved the commission to rehear her
application for death benefits. Both the district hearing
officer and Cleveland Regional Board of Review ruled that they
had no jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. The widow has
appealed to the commission and that appeal is pending.
Relator filed an original action in prohibition seeking to
prevent further consideration of the widow's appeal. Relator's
motion for summary judgment is now before this court.

Willacy & LoPresti, Aubrey B. Willacy and Keith Ganther,
for relator.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman,
Assistant Attorney General, for respondents Oryshkewych, Brown,
Chinnock, members of Cleveland Regional Board of Review, the

regional board and the Industrial Commission.
Patrick J. Alcox, for respondent Dennison.

Per Curiam. Ohio Civ.R. 56(C)'s application to this case
requires relator to establish, among other things, an
entitlement to a writ of prohibition as a matter of law. This
includes demonstrating that denial of the writ "would cause
injury for which there is no other adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." State ex rel. Independence Local
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1991), 62
Ohio St.3d 134, 136, 580 N.E.2d 430, 431. Because relator
cannot establish imminent injury or the unavailability of an
adequate legal remedy, we overrule relator's motion for summary
judgment. Moreover, given the facts of this case, we find it
unnecessary to postpone a decision on the merits of relator's
request for a writ of prohibition.
Contrary to relator's representation, the presence of an
R.C. 4123.519 appeal--if the commission rules adversely to
relator--is an adequate and available remedy. This case,
moreover, does not fall within the class of cases typified by
State ex rel. Adams v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 326, 59
O.O.2d 387, 285 N.E.2d 22, where the presence of an adequate
remedy at law was ruled immaterial, where an inferior court was
without jurisdiction to act.
Relator has also failed to show that it will be harmed if
no writ issues. Both the district hearing officer and regional
board found that they lacked jurisdiction to consider the
widow's death-benefit request on the merits. The commission,
if the widow's appeal is allowed to proceed, may well reach the
same conclusion. Under similar circumstances, we denied a writ
of prohibition, stating:
"Because the SPBR [State Personnel Board of Review] may
ultimately find that it has no jurisdiction, the county cannot
show that it will be injured if a writ of prohibition is
denied. Indeed, if the SPBR finds jurisdiction to be absent
and dismisses the pertinent cases, the county would not even
want to consider an appeal." (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel.
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State Personnel Bd. of Review
(1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 73, 74, 537 N.E.2d 212, 214.
As we commented in that case, the relator-county board of
commissioners was essentially asking that we "assume how the
SPBR will resolve the issue." Id. Relator makes the same
request here and, once again, we decline to speculate as to the
administrative decision that may ensue.
We also note that the only impending "injury" alleged by
relator, if the writ is denied, is the extra expense that it
will incur in continuing to oppose the widow's action. This
factor, however, does not constitute an "injury" sufficient to
justify a writ of prohibition. See State ex rel. Cleveland
Trust Co. v. Pethtel (1940), 137 Ohio St. 525, 19 O.O. 240, 30
N.E.2d 991; State ex rel. Caley v. Tax Commr. (1934), 129 Ohio
St. 83, 1 O.O. 415, 193 N.E. 751. Relator cannot use
prohibition to circumvent the appeal process. State ex rel.
Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 73 O.O.2d 328,
338 N.E.2d 522.
For the reasons given above, we overrule the relator's
motion for summary judgment and deny the writ of prohibition.