Ohio Supreme Court, 2003

State ex rel. Wilson v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided September 24, 2003 · Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

100 Ohio St. 3d 23

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Watley v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr., 06ap-1128 (4-19-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State ex rel. Ralios v. Iannotta (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State Ex Rel. Roxbury v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2014)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Ryan (Ohio 2010)
Dobbins v. Kalson, 07ap-831 (2-5-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Mlinarcik v. Mlinarcik, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Ray, Robinson, Carle v. Am. Trade, Unpublished Decision (7-13-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Maloy v. Maloy, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Thomas v. Early, Unpublished Decision (8-30-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Sudman Trust v. McIntosh, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Dunlavy v. Board of Educ., Unpublished Decision (11-30-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
Kme Consulting, LLC v. Yager, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Angela Wilson, contested the start date of benefits to her minor child, Michael Hickman, following the death of his father, Chris D. Witt, in *24an industrial accident. Dissatisfied with the decision of appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio, she petitioned the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus.

George S. Maley, for appellant. Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

{¶ 2} The court of appeals referred the matter to a magistrate, who on March 15, 2002, issued a report recommending that the writ be denied. Thirty-four days later, appellant filed objections to that report. The commission responded with a motion to strike the objections as untimely and appellant made no reply. The court granted that motion and ultimately adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{¶ 3} This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

{¶ 4} Appellant’s arguments derive directly from the conclusions of law provided in the magistrate’s decision. Appellant, however, did not timely object to those conclusions as Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a) requires. Thus, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b) and State 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.

{¶ 5} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.