[Cite as Le v. Ohio Indus. Comm., 2021-Ohio-1169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Cuong Le, : Relator, : v. : No. 19AP-404 Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Respondents. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on April 6, 2021 On brief: Gruhin & Gruhin, LLC, and Michael H. Gruhin, for relator. On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Lauren A. Kemp, for respondent. IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION BEATTY BLUNT, J. {¶ 1} Relator, Cuong Le, brings this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent the Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") to vacate its order denying relator's application for permanent total disability ("PTD") benefits and enter an order granting such benefits. {¶ 2} This court referred this matter to a magistrate of this court pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate considered the action on its merits and issued a decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate determined that the commission did not 19AP-404 2 abuse its discretion in denying relator's application for PTD benefits and has recommended that this court deny the request for a writ of mandamus. {¶ 3} Relator has filed the following objection to the magistrate's decision: The Magistrate erred when he concluded that the ICO staff hearing officer's consideration of the Stephenson factors was supported by "some evidence" to support denial of Relator's PTD application. {¶ 4} Because relator has filed an objection, we must independently review the record and the magistrate's decision to ascertain whether "the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). {¶ 5} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus as a remedy from a determination of the commission, a relator must show a clear legal right to the relief sought and that the commission has a clear legal duty to provide such relief. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967). "A clear legal right to a writ of mandamus exists when the relator shows that the commission abused its discretion by entering an order that is not supported by any evidence in the record." State ex rel. Metz v. GTC, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 359, 2015-Ohio-1348, ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986). The court will not disturb the commission's decision if there is "some evidence" to support it. State ex rel. Fiber-Lite Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 36 Ohio St.3d 202 (1988); State ex rel. Bennett v. Aldi, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-632, 2016-Ohio-83, ¶ 6. " 'Where a commission order is adequately explained and based on some evidence[,] * * * the order will not be disturbed as manifesting an abuse of discretion.' " State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 237, 2006-Ohio-2287, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals