State ex rel. Tanyhill v. Indus. Comm.

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1823

Syllabus

On objections to magistrate's decision denying relator's petition for a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate denial of scheduled-loss compensation for partial loss of vision and to issue a new order awarding said compensation. The Industrial Commission did not err by refusing to rely on relator's proffered expert report, there is some evidence in the record supporting its decision to deny scheduled-loss compensation, and even if the independent expert opinion that was relied on by the Industrial Commission is excluded, the relator has failed to identify any evidence establishing his entitlement to scheduled-loss benefits. The magistrate correctly concluded that the relator has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the requested benefits or that the Industrial Commission had a clear legal duty to provide such benefits. Objections overruled and writ denied.