Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant injured her knee while working, and a worker’s compensation claim was allowed for a medial meniscus tear of her right knee. When arthroscopic surgery was later performed on Appellant’s knee and no evidence of a meniscus tear was found, the Industrial Commission exercised its continuing jurisdiction and disallowed Appellant’s claim. Appellant filed a petition alleging that she was entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation system for her workplace injuries and also filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Commissioner’s denial of her claim was an abuse of discretion. The court of appeals denied the writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy by way of appeal, and therefore, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Carroll v. Galion Assisted Living, Ltd." on Justia Law

Betty Lunn, the owner of a single-family residence, challenged the Lorain County auditor’s valuation of the property for tax year 2012. Lunn appealed, arguing that her 2011 purchase of the home was a recent arm’s-length sale that established a lower true value. The Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation, concluding that the auditor had provided insufficient evidence of the sale. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed and valued the property according to the sale price. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully when it found that Lunn satisfied her initial burden to show a recent arm’s-length sale under former Ohio Rev. Code 4713.03; but (2) Lunn’s purchase was a “forced sale” under section 5713.04, and therefore, Lunn failed to overcome the presumption that the sale of the property post-foreclosure was not indicative of the property’s true value. View "Lunn v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Cynthia Musto owned property that the Lorain County auditor valued at $547,260 for the tax year 2012. Musto filed a complaint requesting a reduction in value to $405,000. The Board of Revision (BOR) retained the county auditor’s valuation of Musto’s property. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the BTA’s decision, holding (1) the BTA did not err by denying Musto’s motion to continue the BTA hearing; (2) the BTA reasonably and lawfully retained the auditor’s valuation because Musto did not present clear evidence negating it; and (3) the BTA did not err by denying Musto’s motion to disqualify counsel for the auditor and the BOR. View "Musto v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellee was injured at work. The Industrial Commission awarded Appellee permanent total disability compensation benefits, concluding that Appellee was unable to perform any sustained remunerative employment due solely to the medical impairment caused by the allowed psychological condition in her workers’ compensation claim. Appellee subsequently applied for permanent partial disability compensation, arguing that she was entitled to this award based on the physical conditions allowed in her claim. The Industrial Commission determined that a claimant is not barred from concurrent compensation for permanent partial disability if it is based on conditions that were not the basis for the prior finding of permanent total disability in the same claim. Appellant, Appellee’s employer, filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to vacate its order. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed and granted Appellant’s request for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Commission has no authority to award an injured worker permanent partial disability compensation when the worker has been previously found to be permanently disabled in the same claim, even when the new finding is based on conditions in the claim that formed no part of the basis for the prior finding of permanent total disability. View "State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Services, Inc. v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

Marilynne Earles was injured in the course and scope of her employment with BF Goodrich Company, Specialty Chemicals Division (Goodrich). Earles returned to work with certain restrictions. Later, Earles find an application for wage-loss compensation based on a reduction in her earnings while working in a light-duty position. A district hearing officer denied the application. A union representative subsequently filed an appeal on behalf of Earles. The Industrial Commission accepted the appeal and awarded wage-loss compensation. Goodrich filed a complaint in mandamus alleging that the Commission had abused its discretion. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in (1) concluding that Earles’s wage loss was the direct result of her inability to return to her previous position due to the physical restrictions resulting from her claim; and (2) concluding that the appeal was timely filed. View "State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chemicals Division v. Industrial Commission of Ohio" on Justia Law

Mason Companies, Inc., a company based in Wisconsin, appealed from the imposition of Ohio’s commercial-activity tax (CAT) on revenue it earned from its sales of goods through orders received via telephone, mail, and the Internet. Mason challenged the imposition of the CAT assessments based on its being operated outside Ohio, employing no personnel in Ohio, and maintaining no facilities in Ohio. The Supreme Court upheld the CAT assessments against Mason, holding that, after applying the holding in Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, the lack of Mason’s physical presence within Ohio was not a necessary condition for imposing the obligations of the CAT law given that the $500,000 sales-receipts threshold adequately assured that Mason’s nexus with Ohio was substantial. View "Mason Cos., Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

In this companion case to Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa, the Supreme Court considered Newegg, Inc.’s appeal from the imposition of Ohio’s commercial-activity tax (CAT) on revenue it earned from sales of computer-related products that it shipped into the state of Ohio. Newegg contested its CAT assessments based on its being operated outside Ohio, employing no personnel in Ohio, and maintaining no facilities in Ohio. In Crutchfield, the Supreme Court held that, under the Commerce Clause, the physical presence of an interstate business within Ohio is not a necessary condition for imposing the obligations of the CAT law given that the $500,000 sales receipts threshold adequately assures that the taxpayer’s nexus with Ohio is substantial. After applying Crutchfield’s holding in this case, the Supreme Court upheld the CAT assessments against Newegg. View "Newegg, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The tax commissioner issued commercial-activity tax (CAT) assessments against the Crutchfield Corporation on revenue it earned from sales of electronic products that it shipped from the state of Ohio. Crutchfield, whose business in Ohio consisted solely of shipping goods from outside the state to its consumers in Ohio using the United States Postal Service or common-carrier delivery services, challenged the issuance of CAT assessments against it, arguing that Ohio may not impose a tax on the gross receipts associated with its sales to Ohio consumers because Crutchfield lacks a “substantial nexus” with Ohio. Citing case law interpreting this substantial-nexus requirement, Crutchfield argued that its nexus to Ohio was not sufficiently substantial because it lacked a “physical presence” in Ohio. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed the assessments issued by the tax commissioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA and upheld the CAT assessments against Crutchfield, holding (1) the physical presence requirement recognized by the United States Supreme Court for purposes of use-tax collection does not extend to business-privileges taxes such as the CAT; and (2) the statutory threshold of $500,000 of Ohio sales constitutes a sufficient guarantee of the substantiality of an Ohio nexus for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause. View "Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law

In 2006, Inge Fox injured her left arm and hand in the course and scope of her employment with Manpower of Dayton, Inc. Fox’s workers’ compensation claim was allowed for several medical and psychological conditions. In 2013, Fox applied for permanent-total-disability compensation. The Industrial Commission granted the application, finding that Fox’s inability to work was based solely on the medical impairment caused by her allowed conditions. Manpower requested a writ of mandamus that would compel the Commission to vacate its award of permanent total disability compensation to Fox. The court of appeals denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Manpower failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus. View "State ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio" on Justia Law

New York Frozen Foods, Inc. filed its Bedford Heights income-tax returns on a separate-entity basis for tax years 2005 through 2007. In 2010, Frozen Foods and its affiliates filed consolidated amended returns for the same tax years and claimed a refund of taxes it had previously paid based on its separate returns. Regional Income Tax Agency, acting in its capacity as the city’s tax administrator, denied the refund. The Bedford Heights Income tax Board of Review affirmed the denial of refunds. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed, agreeing that the amended returns were improper. Frozen Foods appealed. Bedford Heights cross-appealed, arguing that the BTA erred by failing to deny the refund on an alternative ground. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision to deny Frozen Foods’ claim for a refund on the alternate ground that the city ordinance barred a change from a separate return to a consolidated return when filing an amended return because the change constituted a “change in method of accounting” prohibited by the ordinance. View "New York Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Bedford Heights Income Tax Board of Review" on Justia Law