State ex rel. Capitol Materials Co. v. Bur. of WorkersÆ Comp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. Capitol Materials Company et al., Appellants, v. Ohio 2 Bureau of Workers Compensation, Appellee. 3 [Cite as State ex rel. Capitol Materials Co. v. Bur. of Workers Comp. 4 (1997), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 5 Workers compensation -- Mandamus to compel Bureau of Workers 6 Compensation to waive application deadline for employer 7 inclusion in group rating program -- Writ denied, when -- Ohio 8 Adm.Code 4123-17-62(A), applied. 9 (No. 95-595 -- Submitted February 18, 1997 -- Decided April 23, 10 11 12 13 1997.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD02-138. Appellants, Capitol Materials Company ( Capitol ) and A&B Iron & 14 Metal Company, Inc. ( A&B ), are corporations authorized to do business 15 in Ohio and are fully amenable to Ohio workers compensation laws. The 16 exact relationship between the two companies is unclear, but they 17 apparently are interrelated, sharing at least some personnel. One of these 18 employees was Grace Caperna, who was solely responsible for 19 administering the workers compensation affairs of both employers. In 1 October 1992, Caperna went on a three-month leave of absence. Rather 2 than assign another employee to perform her duties or hire a temporary, the 3 employers-appellants left the desk unstaffed, assuming that Caperna could 4 catch up with her work when she returned in January. 5 In 1992, both employers participated in the Ohio Chamber of 6 Commerce Group Rating Program. The program allows individual 7 employers to band together and be treated as a single employing entity for 8 experience rating purposes. Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-64(A). This 9 combined rating, in turn, affects premium rates, with the expectation that the 10 individual employers within the group would experience lower premium 11 payments. For example, for 1993, anticipated savings for Capitol and A&B 12 were estimated at over $60,000. 13 Pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-62, the group s participation in 14 the program must be renewed annually. This, in turn, annually requires 15 each employer to prepare an Employer Statement for Group Rating Plan. 16 These forms are submitted to the group representative who submits a single 17 application on the group s behalf to appellee, Bureau of Workers 2 1 Compensation. For private employers, applications for group coverage 2 must be filed with the bureau by December 31. 3 The authorized representative for appellants group was the Frank 4 Gates Service Company ( Frank Gates ). On November 21, 1992, Frank 5 Gates sent the following letter to both employers: 6 We wish to thank you for your participation in the OHIO 7 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Group Rating Program. The newly 8 published 1992 Ohio Chamber of Commerce Group Rates from the Bureau 9 of Workers Compensation (BWC) show that you will realize substantial 10 savings in March and September, 1993, as a result of your 1992 Group 11 participation! It is now time for you to sign up for the 1993 Program. It is 12 mandatory that each employer sign a new Employer Statement for Group 13 Rating Plan (AC-26) each year. 14 The professional staff of Frank Gates Service Company s Group 15 Rating Department has completed its evaluation of your workers 16 compensation account. Based on your account standing with the BWC, 17 your operations, claim history and our projected groupings, we estimate that 18 the Group Rating Program will save you * * * for the rate year beginning 3 1 July 1, 1993. Our projections are based on 100% participation. Your actual 2 savings will depend on your future payroll, the number of participants in the 3 Group and the total claims cost incurred through March 31, 1993, by it s 4 [sic] members. Please note that your savings are based on the payroll 5 reports you will file in January and July, 1994. 6 * * * 7 We have enclosed a summary of the Bureau of Workers 8 Compensation s Rules governing this program for your review. Your 9 company must be in full compliance with all BWC group rating Rules in 10 order for the BWC to accept you into the Group. Additionally, you must 11 remain a member of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and abide by it s [sic] 12 rules. 13 In order to apply for the 1993 Group, please complete, sign and mail 14 the following items in the enclosed return envelope to the Frank Gates 15 Service Company (please note: we must receive this information by 16 December 9, 1992) * * *. 17 Because the employers left their workers compensation desk 18 unstaffed, the letters were not discovered until January 4, 1993. By then, 4 1 Frank Gates had turned in the group application -- due December 31, 1992 - 2 - and because the two employers had not forwarded the appropriate 3 documents, their names had been omitted from the group roster and 4 application. On January 19, 1993, the employers submitted their individual 5 application materials directly to the bureau. Participation, however, was 6 denied. 7 8 The two employers appealed their denial to the bureau s Adjudicating Committee. Their appeal was denied as follows: 9 Ohio Administrative Code Rule 4123-17-62(A) requires a [sic] 10 employer to submit to the Bureau an individual application for group rating 11 and for that employer s name to appear on the final group roster by the 12 application deadline. 13 In this case, the application deadline for group rating was December 14 31, 1992. The employer did not submit to the Bureau the individual 15 application until January 19, 1993, and the employer s name did not appear 16 on the group s final roster, nor has the employer offered any extenuating 17 circumstances to explain the omission. Therefore, this committee must 5 1 apply the clear language of the rule and deny the employer s application 2 into the group rating. 3 The Ohio Workers Compensation Board Subcommittee affirmed the order. 4 Appellants filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 5 Franklin County, alleging that the bureau abused its discretion in denying 6 group participation. The appellate court disagreed and denied the writ. 7 8 9 10 11 12 This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. ________________________ Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A., David C. Korte and Mary M. Biagioli, for appellants. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 13 ________________________ 14 Per Curiam. Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-62(A) through (C) read: 15 (A) An application for group experience rating shall be made on a 16 form provided by the bureau and shall be completed in its entirety with all 17 documentation attached as required by the bureau. The absence of pertinent 18 information will result in the application being rejected. The application 6 1 shall be signed by an officer of the organization to which the members of 2 the group belong, and each individual employer in the group shall be 3 identified in the application and shall individually sign a form provided by 4 the bureau indicating a desire to be a part of the group for rating purposes 5 and an acknowledgement of the criteria and rules for group rating. The 6 bureau may request of individual employers or the group additional 7 information necessary for the bureau to rule upon the application for group 8 coverage. Failure or refusal of the group to provide the requested 9 information on the forms or computer formats provided by the bureau shall 10 be sufficient grounds for the bureau to reject the application and refuse the 11 group s participation in group experience rating. Individual employers who 12 are not included on both the final group roster and the individual employer 13 application by the application deadline will not be considered for the group 14 plan for that policy year; however, the bureau may waive this requirement 15 for good cause shown due to clerical or administrative error, so long as no 16 employer is added to a group after the application deadline. All rosters, 17 computer formats or typewritten, must be submitted by the application 18 deadline. 7 1 (B) * * * For private employers, applications for group coverage 2 shall be filed on or before December 31 of the year preceding the July 1 3 beginning date for the rating year. 4 (C) An application for group rating is applicable to only one policy 5 year. The group must reapply each year for group coverage. Continuation 6 of a plan for subsequent years is subject to timely filing of an application on 7 a yearly basis and the meeting of eligibility requirements each year; 8 however, an individual employer member of a continuing group who 9 initially satisfied the homogenous requirement of rule 4123-17-61(B)(3) of 10 the Administrative Code shall not be disqualified for participation in the 11 continuing group for failure to continue to satisfy such requirement. 12 (Emphasis added.) 13 The two employers missed the deadline for inclusion in the group 14 rating program. Now demanding admittance, the employers cite the waiver 15 language contained in Ohio Adm. Code 4123-17-62(A). That waiver, 16 however, does not provide the relief that the employers seek. Again, the 17 relevant provision reads: 8 1 Individual employers who are not included on both the final group 2 roster and the individual employer application by the application deadline 3 will not be considered for the group plan for that policy year; however, the 4 bureau may waive this requirement for good cause shown due to clerical or 5 administrative error, so long as no employer is added to a group after the 6 application deadline. (Emphasis added.) 7 The bureau is permitted to waive the requirement that deals with the 8 employer s dual inclusion on both the roster and application. This waiver 9 allows the bureau, for good cause shown, to include an employer that was 10 listed on only one of the required documents. It does not allow the bureau 11 to waive the filing limitation and, in fact, expressly forbids it. The bureau 12 did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in failing to permit the employers 13 belated entry into the rating group. 14 Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 15 16 17 Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
