State ex rel. Clark v. Krouse

• Decision Date: 28 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 77-349,77-349
• Citation: 371 N.E.2d 538,6 O.O.3d 458,52 Ohio St.2d 201
• Parties: , 6 O.O.3d 458 The STATE ex rel. CLARK, Appellant, v. KROUSE, Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 201

52 Ohio St.2d 201

371 N.E.2d 538, 6 O.O.3d 458

The STATE ex rel. CLARK, Appellant, v. KROUSE, Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, et al., Appellees.

No. 77-349.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Appellant, Thomas Clark, filed an original action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals, seeking to direct the Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation (appellee) and others to comply with the order of the Industrial Commission of Ohio (commission) to pay appellant permanent and total disability benefits retroactive to 1951.

Appellant's claim for workmen's compensation benefits was based upon a work-related accident, wherein he lost both his hands and a part of his left forearm. The payment of permanent and total disability benefits was commenced, pursuant to the commission's order, in March 1948.

Thereafter, appellant began a rehabilitation program, learning to utilize prosthetic hands and arms. In November 1951, appellant returned to work as a supervisor for his former employer. The commission, in August of 1953, terminated appellant's permanent and total disability benefits effective November 1951. Following the termination of all such payments in 1956, appellant's claim was dormant, except for the payment of medical expenses and prosthetic devices, for over 19 years.

On October 6, 1975, appellant filed a claim requesting that his permanent and total disability payments be reinstated from either the date of the last payment or the date that he returned to work. The commission granted appellant's request in an order on November 18, 1975, reinstating permanent and total compensation as of "the date compensation was terminated." However, appellee refused to implement the November 18, 1975, order. Appellant therefore commenced this action in the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the action before the Court of Appeals, the commission modified its order of November 18, limiting appellant's recovery of permanent and total compensation to two years prior to the filing of his claim on October 6, 1975.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals granting appellee's motion for summary judgment.

Jurus & Young and Stanley R. Jurus, Columbus, for appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Holder, Columbus, for appellee administrator.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to grant a writ of mandamus ordering the reinstatement of permanent and total disability compensation as of the date of its termination or, in the alternative, as of 1959, the date that R.C. 4123.58 was amended to grant appellant his right to receive the benefits without regard to his rehabilitation and reemployment. ¹

This court has stated on numerous occasions that mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy and the issuance of the writ depends upon the showing of a clear legal right thereto. State ex rel. Croft v. Janis (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 33, 263 N.E.2d 309; State ex rel. Hammond v. P. E. R. S. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 192, 280 N.E.2d 904; State ex rel. Breno v. Indus. Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 227, 298 N.E.2d 150. The Court of Appeals, in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment, stated that the record failed to demonstrate a "clear legal right to the relief sought," finding that, under the provisions of R.C. 4123.52, appellant was entitled only to compensation for the two years prior to the filing of his application.

R.C. 4123.52 states, in relevant part:

"The jurisdiction of the industrial commission over each case shall be continuing, and the commission may make such modification or change with respect to former findings or orders with respect thereto, as, in its opinion is justified. * * * (A)nd the commission shall not make any such modification, change, finding, or award which shall award compensation for a back period in excess of two years prior to the date of filing application therefor. * * * " (Emphasis added.)

Despite this rather explicit statutory limitation on the awarding of retroactive compensation for a period in excess of two years, appellant asserts that State ex rel. Holdridge v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 175, 228 N.E.2d 621, is supportive of his claim for the restoration of his compensation from the date of last payment. The decision in State ex rel. Holdridge, supra, although resulting in the reinstatement of permanent and total disability compensation as of the date of termination, is of no precedential value in the resolution of the instant cause. The issue sub judice of the two-year limitation on back payments was not presented by either party or discussed by the court, for the issue in State ex rel. Holdridge, supra, was not the awarding of back compensation, but the validity of the termination (after the 1959 amendment to R.C. 4123.58) of current payments because of rehabilitation.

This, however, is not a matter of first impression before this court. In State ex rel. Hammond v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 144 Ohio St. 477, 59 N.E.2d 745, this court held that the identical language in the predecessor of R.C. 4123.52 as to the limitation on back compensation constituted a valid statute of limitations. ²

The syllabus in State ex rel. Hammond...