STATE, EX REL. EATON CORP., v. LANCASTER, 44 Ohio St.3d 106 (1989)

541 N.E.2d 64

THE STATE, EX REL. EATON CORPORATION, v. LANCASTER ET AL. (TWO CASES.) THE STATE, EX REL. GCC BEVERAGES, INC., APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT, ET AL. THE STATE, EX REL. FIRESTONE TIRE RUBBER COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT, ET AL.

Nos. 87-622, 87-1887, 88-205 and 88-1312Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted March 28, 1989 —
Decided July 12, 1989.

Workers’ compensation — Rehearing granted — Employer entitled to reimbursement from Surplus Fund under R.C. 4123.515, when — Temporary total compensation paid subsequent to permanency finding.

IN MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION.

APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 86AP-1119 and 86AP-1120.

ON REHEARING.[1]

[1] See (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 404, 534 N.E.2d 46.

Willacy LoPresti and Aubrey B. Willacy, for relator in case Nos. 87-622 and 87-1887.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Michael L. Squillace and Merl H. Wayman, for respondents, members of the Industrial Commission, and appellant, Industrial Commission, in case Nos. 87-622, 87-1887 and 88-205, respectively.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease, Russell P. Herrold, Jr., an Robert A. Minor, in support of reimbursement in case No. 88-205, for amicus curiae Ohio Manufacturers’ Association.

Per Curiam.

On authority of State, ex rel. Peabody Coal Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 104, 541 N.E.2d 74, we hereby grant Surplus Fund reimbursement in case Nos. 87-622, 87-1887, 88-205 and 88-1312 for all amounts of temporary total compensation paid to the claimants herein subsequent to the respective findings of permanency.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurring.

I am pleased to see the majority of the court reverse itself and adopt the position

Page 107

set forth in my concurrence (joined in by Justice Sweeney) in the original decision in these cases as reported in State, ex rel. Eaton Corp., v. Lancaster (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 404, 416-417, 534 N.E.2d 46, 58. Obviously, I concur in the majority opinion.

SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

Page 108

jdjungle