|
|
State ex rel. Southwest Community Health Sys. v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio
| 25AP-127 | Upon review of the magistrate’s decision, as well as an independent review of the record and due consideration of the employer’s objections, we find the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law. The magistrate did not err by concluding that the reports of Dr. Nair and Dr. Haynesworth presented objective findings satisfying Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(d). Because we also find that the commission’s order was adequately explained and based on some evidence, we find that the magistrate did not err in his application of the “some evidence” standard. Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/6/2026
|
8/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3031 |
|
Moore v. Moore
| 25AP-329 | On appeal from a domestic-relations court decision appointing a parenting coordinator pursuant to the parties’ shared parenting plan. The decision, rendered after the parties’ final divorce decree, was a final, appealable order, and one that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter. The court’s decision to reappoint the previous parenting coordinator, rather than appointing a new parenting coordinator, did not involve an abuse of discretion or error of law. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/6/2026
|
8/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3032 |
|
State v. Crawford
| 25AP-558 | The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of two counts of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, and two counts of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11. Neither is the verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not identify any conflicting evidence that would support his argument that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Furthermore, ample evidence of drug possession and trafficking was presented to the jury. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
8/6/2026
|
8/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3033 |
|
J.W. v. N.W.
| 25AP-586 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s petition for a domestic violence civil protection order (“DVCPO”) against appellant. Any error in admitting the challenged hearsay evidence was harmless. The trial court’s granting of the DVCPO was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion in defining the scope and terms of the DVCPO. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/6/2026
|
8/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3034 |
|
O'Brien v. Ohio Bur. Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-608 | Appellant’s second and third assignments of error are overruled because appellant did not present a dispute of fact regarding the existence of an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination and retaliation. Appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained in part because appellant presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate a dispute of material fact regarding whether appellee failed to accommodate appellant’s request for a redistribution of his workload for his anxiety and depression condition. The first assignment of error is overruled to the extent that appellant argued that appellee failed to accommodate his request for telework. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the matter remanded for further proceedings. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/4/2026
|
8/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3001 |
|