State, ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster, s. 87-622
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 541 N.E.2d 64,44 Ohio St.3d 106 |
| Docket Number | 87-1887,88-205 and 88-1312,Nos. 87-622,s. 87-622 |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. EATON CORPORATION, v. LANCASTER et al. (Two Cases.) The STATE, ex rel. GCC BEVERAGES, INC., Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, Appellant, et al. The STATE, ex rel. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, Appellant, et al. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
In Mandamus and Prohibition.
Appeals from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 86AP-1119 and 86AP-1120.
Willacy & LoPresti and Aubrey B. Willacy, Cleveland, for relator in case Nos. 87-622 and 87-1887.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Michael L. Squillace and Merl H. Wayman, Columbus, for respondents, members of the Indus. Com'n, and appellant, Indus. Com'n, in case Nos. 87-622, 87-1887 and 88-205, respectively.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Russell P. Herrold, Jr., and Robert A. Minor, Columbus, in support of reimbursement in case No. 88-205, for amicus curiae Ohio Mfrs. Ass'n.
ON REHEARING 1
On authority of State, ex rel. Peabody Coal Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 104, 541 N.E.2d 74, we hereby grant Surplus Fund reimbursement in case Nos. 87-622, 87-1887, 88-205 and 88-1312 for all amounts of temporary total compensation paid to the claimants herein subsequent to the respective findings of permanency.
Judgment accordingly.
I am pleased to see the majority of the court reverse itself and adopt the position set forth in my concurrence (joined in by Justice Sweeney) in the original decision in these cases as reported in State, ex rel. Eaton Corp., v. Lancaster (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 404, 416-417, 534 N.E.2d 46, 58. Obviously, I concur in the majority opinion.
SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio, 95-561
...ex rel. Peabody Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 104, 105, 541 N.E.2d 74, 75; State ex rel. Eaton v. Lancaster (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 106, 541 N.E.2d 64; and Eaton, 40 Ohio St.3d at 416, 534 N.E.2d at 58 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Garrett was not denied compensation at subseque......
-
State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 95-58
...opinion adopted by a majority of this court pursuant to a motion for reconsideration); State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 106, 541 N.E.2d 64 (views contained in a previous concurring opinion adopted by a majority of this court pursuant to a motion for The majority ......
-
State ex rel. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ohio, 95-964
...rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 404, 534 N.E.2d 46 ("Eaton I"), reconsidered and modified on other grounds (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 106, 541 Page 513 N.E.2d 64, denounced this policy because it paid TTD to claimants whose conditions were no longer temporary and, thus, did n......
-
Bunkley v. State, Case No. 19 MA 0137
...petition for a writ of procedendo); State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Lancaster, 40 Ohio St.3d 404, 410, 534 N.E.2d 46, 52 (1988), on reh'g, 44 Ohio St.3d 106, 541 N.E.2d 64 (1989) (converting workers compensation claimaints' original action from prohibition to mandamus where claimants had prese......