State ex rel. Carlile v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. - 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. Carlile v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 90 Ohio St.3d 20, 2000-Ohio-6.]

THE STATE EX REL. CARLILE, APPELLANT, v. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Carlile v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d
20.]
Workers' compensation -- Application for approval of final settlement -- R.C.
4123.65, construed and applied -- R.C. 4121.121(B) and 4123.65 empower
Administrator of Bureau of Workers' Compensation to approve settlement
agreement between an employer and employee in a state fund claim.
(No. 99-779 -- Submitted August 22, 2000 -- Decided September 20, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-316.

Appellant-claimant, Richard A. Carlile, Jr., sustained a "lumbar
sprain/strain" on March 30, 1993, in the course of and arising from his
employment with Union Metal Corporation. Four years later, in 1997, he
submitted to appellee, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, a "settlement agreement
and/or application for approval of settlement agreement (for state fund employers
only)." Signed by both claimant and employer, it listed a settlement figure of
$35,000.

A November 13, 1997 response from the bureau's Canton settlement team
stated:

"This is a four year old soft tissue injury allowed for `lumbar sprain/strain'.
There has been no compensable lost time in this claim since 2-27-94. (There has
been additional TT requested but the medical in file indicates that it does not
substantiate to be necessitated by the original injury). The medical in the file also
indicates that the on going treatment that the claimant is receiving is not
substantiated for the allowed conditions in this claim. He has received $1,312.27
in chiropractic treatment since 10-2-97. He has received an 11% PP award on 6-
21-95.

"As an offer to settle this matter, I am willing to offer an amended settlement
for $5,000.

"If this amended offer is acceptable or if you have justification for an
increase, please send a letter of request for the final agreement to the above
address. * * *

" * * *

"If there is no response after 14 days, I will deny the settlement. * * *"

On December 27, 1997, the application was formally denied as:

"All parties do not agree with the settlement terms. The request[ed] amount
cannot be justified and the amended offer was not accepted."

2

Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County, alleging that the Bureau abused its discretion in denying the
settlement application. The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ.

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

William Z. Christoff, for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
__________________

Per Curiam. Claimant challenges the administrator's authority to modify a
settlement amount agreed to by an employee and state fund employer. Finding the
challenge to lack merit, we hereby affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Pursuant to R.C. 4121.121(B), the administrator's duties include:

"(18) Pursuant to section 4123.65 of the Revised Code, approv[al of]
applications for the final settlement of claims for compensation or benefits * * * as
the administrator determines appropriate * * *."

R.C. 4123.65 further provides:

"(A) A state fund employer or the employee of such an employer may file an
application with the administrator of workers' compensation for approval of a final
settlement of a claim under this chapter. The application shall include the

3

settlement agreement, be signed by the claimant and employer, and clearly set
forth the circumstances by reason of which the proposed settlement is deemed
desirable[,] and that the parties agree to the terms of the settlement agreement * *
*.

"(B) Except as provided in divisions (C) and (D) of this section, a
settlement agreed to under this section is binding upon all parties thereto and as to
items, injuries, and occupational diseases to which the settlement applies.

"(C) No settlement agreed to under division (A) of this section * * * shall
take effect until thirty days after the administrator approves the settlement for state
fund employees and employers * * *. During the thirty-day period, the employer,
employee, or administrator, for state fund settlements * * * may withdraw consent
to the settlement by an employer providing written notice to the employer's
employee and the administrator or by an employee providing written notice to the
employee's employer and the administrator, or by the administrator[,] providing
written notice to the state fund employer and employee.

"(D) At the time of agreement to any final settlement agreement under
division (A) of this section * * *, the administrator, for state fund settlements * * *
immediately shall send a copy of the agreement to the industrial commission who
shall assign the matter to a staff hearing officer. The staff hearing officer shall

4

determine, within the time limitations specified in division (C) of this section,
whether the settlement agreement is or is not a gross miscarriage of justice. * * *"

These statutes clearly empower the administrator to approve a settlement
agreement between an employer and employee in a state fund claim. In this case,
the administrator--as was his prerogative--did not approve the agreement after
finding that the proposed amount was not substantiated by the medical activity in
the claim.

In the absence of a clear legal right by claimant to the relief sought, we
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

5