State ex rel. Saunders v. Metal Container Corp., 556 N.E.2d 168 (Ohio 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Saunders v. Metal Container Corp., 556 N.E.2d 168 (Ohio 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 26× by 24 distinct cases, 1992–2019 · 2 courts↑ Rising · …sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of r.c. 4123.52 ✓ Topic ↗
131 citation events (88 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent State ex rel. Belle Tire Distribs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion) (2018)
“When the employer sought clarification of the allowed condition, a second hearing officer ordered that the condition described as "back" be deleted and that the prior allowance be clarified to "lumbosacral strain with degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine." Id. at 85-86 , 556 N.E.2d 168 .”
Dissent State Ex Rel. B & C MacHine Co. v. Industrial Commission (1992)
“Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85 , 556 N.E.2d 168 .”
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Koch v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Cottrell v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Dailey v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Sun Chem. Corp. v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Belle Tire Distribs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
Ohio · 2018 · confidence medium
The district hearing officer's order, however, listed the injury only as "back." Saunders at 85, 556 N.E.2d 168 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Croston v. Alliance Castings Co.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Belle Tire Distribs, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp., 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 (1990), for the proposition that mandamus is the proper means to challenge the propriety of the commission's exercise of continuing jurisdiction.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Roberts v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Bennett v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Johnson v. OSU Cancer Research Hosp.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel Brown v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Lawson v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vroman v. Brigano
6th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Tyler, 52 Ohio St.3d at 85; see extend limitations by even a single day.” Graham- also State v. Hansbro, No. 2001-CA-88, 2002 WL 1332297 , Humphreys, 209 F.3d at 561. at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. June 14, 2002) (noting that Ohio courts have “rejected a ‘prison mail rule’”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. B & C MacHine Co. v. Industrial Commission (2×)
Ohio · 1992 · confidence medium
Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 86 , 556 N.E.2d 168, 170 (mistake must be "sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State, ex rel. Saunders
v.
Metal Container Corporation
No. 89-145.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 27, 1990.
556 N.E.2d 168
Michael J. Muldoon, for appellee., Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Warren H. Morse and Darrell R. Shepard, for appellant Metal Container Corp., Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Jeffery W. Clark, for appellant Industrial Commission.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Snick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 57 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

R.C. 4121.36(B) provides in part:

“Any decision by a district hearing officer, a regional board of review, a staff hearing officer, or the commission shall be in writing and contain the following elements:

“* * *

“(4) Description of the part of the body and nature of the disability recognized in the claim.”

The self-insured employer’s original certification contained both descriptions. When transferred to the January 11, 1985 and June 12, 1985 orders, however, the nature of disability, i.e., “spr.” (“sprain”), was somehow deleted. R.C. 4121.36(B)(4) compliance thus warranted remedial action, but not to the extent seen here.

Analysis turns to R.C. 4123.52, which grants the commission continuing jurisdiction to modify or change former orders. While not unlimited, invocation of this statute may be appropriate in certain cases of mistake. See Indus. Comm. v. Dell (1922), 104 Ohio St. 389, 135 N.E. 669; State v. Ohio Stove Co. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 27, 42 O.O. 117, 93 N.E. 2d 291. In the case at bar, the appearance of a statutorily defective allowance in the 1985 orders constituted such a mistake.

This error could have been corrected simply by amending the allowed condition to reflect “back sprain” instead of just “back.” The commission, however, went one step further and narrowed the named body part from “back” to “lumbosacral” and “lumbar spine.” It did so, moreover, despite the absence of any allegation that its designation of “back” as the affected body part was wrong. As such, the commission’s continuing jurisdiction did not allow the extent of the correction attempted here.

Appellants 'also challenge appellee’s resort to mandamus, contending that the commission’s February 2, 1987 order could have been appealed under R.C. 4123.519. Appellants, however, misdefine the issue before us. The relevant question here is not one of appellee’s right to participate in the State Insurance Fund for a “back” injury but is instead whether a mistake sufficient to invoke the continuing jurisdiction provisions of R.C. 4123.52 existed. We find this latter question to be the proper subject matter for a writ of mandamus. State, ex rel. Highway Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 41, 24 O.O. 3d 37, 434 N.E. 2d 279.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.