Could Fiancee of Ohio Man who Fell through Roof Appeal Dependency Decision?

What Do You Think?

LaGrange, OH (WorkersCompensation.com) -- Dependents are entitled to seek death benefits under the Ohio workers’ compensation act. But if the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation finds that the claimants are not dependents under Ohio law, can the claimants appeal that decision in court?

A case involving a roofer who fell through a hole answers that question. The roofer was working when he plummeted 30 feet into a clearly marked hole on the roof and died. Subsequently, chemical substances were found in his blood.

The roofer’s fiancee and daughter filed for workers’ compensation benefits as dependents of the deceased. The Bureau denied the claim on basis that they were not dependents, given that the fiancee and roofer hadn’t married or even obtained a license. In fact, there was evidence that their relationship was highly strained and that the roofer, when the two had relationship struggles, would sleep at work.

The fiancee and daughter appealed to the court of common pleas. They did not file a writ of mandamus. The trial court dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimants lacked standing to appeal the Bureau’s decision.

The appellate court noted that a dependent can be a surviving spouse, child, or parent. Generally, a fiancee does not qualify.

Further, when challenging a dependency decision by the Bureau, a claimant must bring a writ of mandamus. She cannot appeal that type of decision to a trial court.

Did the fiancee and daughter have standing to appeal dependency decision?

A. No. They never filed a writ of mandamus resolving the issue.

B. Yes. Given that the adult claimant was his fiancee, she clearly intended to marry the roofer.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Dunn v. West Roofing Systems, Inc., No. 23 MO 0024 (Ohio Ct. App. 09/26/24), which held that, under Ohio law, the claimants had no right to challenge the Bureau’s dependency decision in court. 

The appeals court pointed out that Ohio law bars a claimant from appealing an agency’s dependency determination to the court of common pleas. The claimants here were required to file mandamus and failed to do so. Further, it was not sufficient for claimants to simply have the intention of filing mandamus. Thus, because the claimants were not dependents, they had no standing to seek workers’ compensation benefits. 

As a side note, the court poitned out that this was not a case where the evidence showed there was a solid relationship and clear intention to marry. The finance and dependent had not obtained a marriage license and it was unclear how long they had been together. Also, there was evidence that they had a turbulent relationship. 

“In particular, while they lived together, the decedent would leave the dwelling and sleep in a van on the employer's property due to discord in the relationship,” the court wrote.

Share This Article: