State ex rel. Burroughs v. Ohio Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys. Bd. (Slip Opinion)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- O'Connor, O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, O'Neill, Fischer, Dewine
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and denied Burroughs's writ of mandamus, holding that the Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System Board had no legal duty to conduct a physical-capacity evaluation before terminating his disability-retirement benefits and that the board's decision was supported by sufficient medical evidence.
Excerpt
Mandamus-Writ sought to compel Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System Board to vacate its termination of his disability-retirement benefits-Court of appeals' abused its discretion in granting limited writ ordering the board to conduct a physical-capacity evaluation-Board had no duty to conduct physical-capacity evaluation prior to terminating disability-retirement benefits-Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ denied.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.
Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.
Browse Related
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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.