State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. - 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

[Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 88 Ohio St.3d 52, 2000-Ohio-269.]

THE STATE EX REL. BOOHER, APPELLANT, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING,
INC. ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Booher v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52.]
Civil procedure -- Workers' compensation -- Civ.R. 53(E)(3), applied -- Court
of appeals' denial of writ of mandamus affirmed.
(No. 98-1503 -- Submitted January 26, 2000 -- Decided February 23, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD12-1666.

In 1990, appellant-claimant, Ramona D. Booher, was employed by self-
insured appellee Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. She later alleged that on
April 18, 1990, she injured her back in the course of and arising from her
employment.

Her workers' compensation claim was denied by appellee Industrial
Commission of Ohio, and claimant appealed to the Union County Common Pleas
Court. The jury returned a verdict allowing claimant's claim for "low back strain,"
specifically disallowing it for "herniated disc," and judgment was entered upon the
verdict. The Court of Appeals for Union County upheld that decision.

Claimant then moved Honda for temporary total disability compensation
from August 23, 1990 to July 3, 1991 and March 10, 1993 to November 7, 1995.
Honda denied the request, and the matter was set for an Industrial Commission

hearing. A district hearing officer denied compensation, citing evidence that
attributed claimant's disability to the nonallowed disc condition. That order was
administratively affirmed.

Claimant responded with a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals
for Franklin County. A magistrate, in a decision rendered July 29, 1997,
recommended denial of the writ, after finding that the commission's decision was
supported by "some evidence." Claimant did not file objections to that report
within the time specified in Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a).

In late August 1997, claimant's counsel allegedly discovered, for the first
time, the magistrate's decision intermingled with other mail. Rather than
immediately moving the court of appeals for leave to file objections, claimant
appealed directly to this court (case No. 97-1830). The commission responded
with a motion to dismiss, prompting claimant to voluntarily request dismissal of
her appeal.

On December 22, 1997, claimant moved the court of appeals to vacate the
magistrate's decision and permit her to file objections. The court of appeals denied
the motion, after finding that claimant had not adequately explained why she had
waited approximately five months from the discovery of the magistrate's decision
to seek relief and file objections.

2

Claimant filed objections anyway. The court of appeals, in turn, ordered the
objections stricken. On June 11, 1998, the court issued a decision adopting the
magistrate's decision, and denied a writ of mandamus.

This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Sharon E. Deal, for appellant.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee
Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.
__________________

Per Curiam. Claimant's arguments before us derive directly from the
conclusions of law contained in the magistrate's decision. Claimant, however, did
not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3) requires. Civ.R.
53(E)(3)(b) prohibits a party from "assign[ing] as error on appeal the court's
adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party has objected
to that finding or conclusion under this rule."

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

3