State ex rel. Martin v. Connor

• Decision Date: 22 February 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-1817,82-1817
• Citation: 9 OBR 523,9 Ohio St.3d 213,459 N.E.2d 889
• Parties: , 9 O.B.R. 523 The STATE, ex rel. MARTIN, v. CONNOR, Admr., Bureau of Workers' Compensation.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 213

9 Ohio St.3d 213

459 N.E.2d 889, 9 O.B.R. 523

The STATE, ex rel. MARTIN, v. CONNOR, Admr., Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

No. 82-1817.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 22, 1984.

Clayman & Jaffy Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Henry A. Arnett, Columbus, for relator.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Gerald H. Waterman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question presented in this cause is whether a retroactive increase in DSS payments gives rise to a recoupable overpayment of DWRF benefits. This court has found that the recoupability of payments made under a mistake of fact depends on the circumstances.

In Indus. Comm. v. Dell (1922), 104 Ohio St. 389, 135 N.E. 669, this court did not require the refund of payments made under the good faith but mistaken belief that a woman was a deceased claimant's widow. Upon discovery of the claimant's lawful wife (from whom he had never been divorced) the payments were terminated, but the amounts already paid were not recouped.

In contrast, this court ruled in State ex rel. Weimer v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 159, 404 N.E.2d 149 , that excessive payments made due to a clerical error were recoupable. The distinction lies in the determination of the recipient's entitlement. In Dell, all parties believed the wrong woman was entitled to the widow's benefits at the time the payments were made. By contrast, in Weimer the bureau never believed the claimant was entitled to the amount she received, and, in all likelihood, neither did the claimant. In the instant case, as in Dell, all parties believed relator was entitled to the DWRF payments at the time they were made.

R.C. 4123.52 gives respondent broad authority to review and modify past findings and orders. This court stated 104 Ohio St. at page 395, 135 N.E. 669 in Dell, supra: "It is well understood that the primary purpose of a continuing jurisdiction is to give a board or tribunal the power to modify or change a judgment or order to meet changed conditions, or to do justice in the light of newly discovered evidence, or to correct an order which was made as the result of fraud or imposition, or an order which would not have been made if certain facts later discovered had then been known to exist. * * * " Having so stated, however, this court did not require that payments made under a mistake of fact be repaid.

No mistake was made with regard to relator's right and respondent's duty at the time the DWRF payments in question were made. While respondent has the authority to recoup overpayments, that authority is not unlimited. This court has reasoned that such authority does not extend to payments made and accepted in the good faith belief that they were due. Respondent is without authority to recover the payments made to relator. His attempts to do so constitute an abuse of discretion.

Mandamus will lie where the Industrial Commission has abused its discretion. State ex rel. Anderson v. State (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 106, 397 N.E.2d 1199 . Pursuant to R.C. 4121.121(I) that same standard applies to the respondent. Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, C.J., and WILLIAM B. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, CLIFFORD F. BROWN and JAMES P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.

HOLMES, J., dissents.

HOLMES, Justice, dissenting.

The majority opinion here represents yet another unfortunate and unwarranted onslaught upon the State Insurance Fund of Ohio. There is no dispute that the relator, Donald Martin, has in fact been paid $8,907.75 more than allowed under Ohio law. The only issue is whether the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation may recoup this amount on behalf of the state of Ohio.

This court has affirmatively answered a similar issue in the case of State ex rel. Weimer v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 159, 404 N.E.2d 149 , wherein the claimant was erroneously over-compensated due to a clerical mistake. We determined that recovery could be effectuated by the Industrial Commission because of the continuing jurisdiction vested in the commission by virtue of R.C. 4123.52. This statute provides in pertinent 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."

In Weimer, this court specifically defined the role and duty of the commission in an instance of overpayment to a claimant out of the State Insurance Fund. In so doing, we quoted the following language...