Skip to main content

State ex rel. OneSource Emp. Mgt., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Ct. App.February 5, 2026No. 24AP-615

Case Details

Judge(s)
Boggs
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Petition for writ of mandamus denied

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Petition for writ of mandamus against the Industrial Commission was denied. The magistrate determined that OneSource failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the commission had a clear legal duty to provide it.

Excerpt

Petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Magistrate did not err in his determination that OneSource failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the commission was under a clear legal duty to provide it.

Browse more:Mandamus cases

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm.
OhioOct 2025

Workers' compensation—Mandamus—Violations of specific safety requirements ("VSSRs")—Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7)—Judicial branch must defer to Industrial Commission's factual determinations but not to its legal interpretations of specific safety requirements—TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors and In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., followed—Court of appeals correctly concluded that whether large excavator was a power shovel does not determine whether Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) was applicable but erred by (1) proceeding to evaluate the evidence and determine that employer violated Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) because large excavator was a "heavy object[] on a level above and near" trench where VSSR applicant was working when he was injured and (2) holding that staff hearing officer abused her discretion by not finding a violation of Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) based on location of dump truck and fill dirt—Court of appeals' judgment granting writ ordering commission to issue VSSR award reversed and limited writ ordering commission to resolve certain factual issues it did not reach when denying VSSR application granted.

Remanded
State ex rel. Prime Roof Solutions, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioSep 2025

Workers' compensation—Mandamus—Violations of specific safety requirements ("VSSRs")—Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1) (requiring that fall-protection gear be provided to employees exposed to hazards of falling)—Employer failed to establish that Industrial Commission failed to perform a legal duty or abused its discretion in granting claimant's application for VSSR award for violation of Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1)—Some evidence supports commission's finding that claimant was not assisting in installation of fall-protection system when he fell—Court of appeals' judgment denying writ affirmed.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Presswood v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2023
Remanded
State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
Unknown CourtApr 1997

Mandamus to compel State Employment Relations Board either to find that relator's unfair labor practice charge was timely filed and proceed with a hearing or consider the facts concerning the timeliness question and issue an explanation setting forth its rationale—Writ denied, when.

Dismissed
State ex rel. Rock v. School Emp. Retirement Bd.
OhioAug 2002

Appellate procedure—Court of appeals' decision in mandamus action ordering cause returned to magistrate for a determination on the merits appealed to Supreme Court—Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court for want of prosecution—Dismissal of mandamus action by court of appeals for lack of jurisdiction reversed and cause remanded to court of appeals for a consideration of the merits of relator's mandamus action.

Remanded

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.