State, Ex Rel., v. Indus. Comm., 20961

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: BY THE COURT.
• Citation: 119 Ohio St. 205,162 N.E. 800
• Parties: The State, Ex Rel. The Reaugh Construction Co., v. Industrial Commission Of Ohio.
• Docket Number: 20961
• Decision Date: 20 June 1928

162 N.E. 800

119 Ohio St. 205

The State, Ex Rel. The Reaugh Construction Co.,
v.
Industrial Commission Of Ohio.

No. 20961

Supreme Court of Ohio

June 20, 1928

Workmen's compensation - Classification of occupations or industries for fixing premium rates - Sections 1465-53 and 1465-54, General Code - General building contractor's payroll not segregated among available classifications for different occupations.

IN MANDAMUS

This is an original action in mandamus in this court. The petition alleges that the relator is engaged in the business of building office, commercial bank, hospital, theater, factory, and warehouse buildings, apartments, and residences; that the relator is a contributing employer to the state insurance fund and employs three or more workmen that the Industrial Commission classifies occupation or industries with respect to the degree of hazards and fixes the rates of premiums on risks, under Section 1465-53, General Code; that on July 1, 1927, this commission revised its classification of occupation and industries and established compensation rates for the ensuing year; that on January 24, 1928, the relator mailed to the commission its pay roll report of operations for the previous six months period (setting it forth in detail), which the commission refused to accept, but arbitrarily reclassified its pay roll sheets (at higher rates and premiums), which premiums the relator paid under protest; that had the commission accepted the relator's pay roll report, relator would have paid approximately $364.86 less than it did pay for the six months coverage [119 Ohio St. 206] Relator alleges that in September, 1927, it applied to the commission for a hearing on the subject of its rates by way of appeal from the ruling of the commission's actuarial and auditing department, but received no relief thereby, although more than four months have elapsed since making its application.

Relator alleges that the respondent's action, in its reclassification of relator's pay roll report, and in its refusal to permit relator "to segregate its pay roll among the available classifications in defendant's manual of rates," is arbitrary and a gross discrimination against relator, which amounts to a taking of relator's property without due process of law, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Setting forth in its petition certain manual numbers controlling premium rates which should be applied to relator's occupation or industry, which are lower than those established by the commission, the relator contends that it is entitled to avail itself of such lower...