A recent decision by an Ohio appellate court has resulted in the dismissal of a petition seeking more than $1.4 million in alleged overdue compensation, penalties, and housing support from state agencies responsible for workers’ compensation. The case highlights procedural requirements for mandamus actions and underscores the importance of properly stating claims when seeking extraordinary legal remedies.
The complaint was filed by Chesney Nicole Thompson on July 7, 2025, in the Tenth District Court of Appeals against the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and the Industrial Commission of Ohio. Thompson, representing herself, requested that the court order payment of what she described as “overdue compensation, penalties, and housing support totaling $1,403,256.80,” restitution for “unlawfully retained attorney fees” amounting to $40,753.00, reinstatement of medical treatment previously denied, reversal of those denials, and any further relief deemed appropriate.
According to filings reviewed by Magistrate Joseph E. Wenger IV and Judge Leland, Thompson’s petition centered on an active workers’ compensation claim related to a workplace injury reported on November 24, 2021. She alleged that both agencies violated statutory and administrative obligations through actions such as denying medical necessity for cervical disc herniation without proper physician examination or review; withholding overpayment deductions without hearings or valid orders; allowing legal representatives to collect substantial fees without consent; ignoring her claimed right to housing support; denying remote hearing access; failing to process certain medical approvals; not honoring statutory notice periods; and failing to inform her about travel reimbursement rights.
Thompson asserted that she was entitled to automatic awards under specific sections of Ohio law due to alleged failures by respondents to issue timely orders after medical requests. She also claimed that penalties should accrue at $150 per day for delayed payments and cited violations under both state law and federal civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. §1983). In addition to monetary relief, Thompson demanded judicial enforcement actions including emergency seizure or liens upon bureau reserve funds.
Both respondents—the bureau and commission—filed motions to dismiss. They argued that Thompson’s petition failed on several grounds: it did not comply with statutory captioning requirements under R.C. 2731.04 (which mandates petitions be brought in the name of the state on relation of the applicant), lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for some claims (such as monetary damages or restitution outside their purview), failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under workers’ compensation procedures, and did not allege with sufficient particularity that no adequate remedy at law existed.
The magistrate’s decision noted that while prior case law had sometimes allowed technical caption errors to be waived if not jurisdictional (as referenced in Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks), more recent decisions—including State ex rel. Harper v. Perlatti—supported sua sponte dismissal when such errors occurred. In this instance, Thompson’s failure to file her petition “in the name of the state on the relation of” herself was deemed sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Additionally, even aside from procedural defects in captioning, Thompson’s petition was found deficient because it did not clearly allege an absence of alternative legal remedies—a necessary element for mandamus relief according to established precedent such as State ex rel. Harris v. Toledo. The magistrate wrote: “Because Thompson has failed to allege in her petition the lack of an adequate remedy at law at all…Thompson’s petition fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal.”
The court also reviewed various documents submitted by Thompson alongside her filings—including affidavits alleging harm or administrative violations—but concluded these were insufficient substitutes for clear legal allegations required by law.
Ultimately, Judge Leland adopted most findings from Magistrate Wenger IV’s report: “We therefore adopt the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as our own…In accordance with the magistrates recommendation, we sua sponte dismiss relator’s requested writ of mandamus.” All pending motions were rendered moot as a result.
Attorneys involved included Dave Yost (Attorney General), Natalie J. Tackett (for respondent Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation), Anna Isupova (for respondent Industrial Commission). Chesney Nicole Thompson represented herself pro se throughout proceedings.
The case is identified as No. 25AP-561.
Source: 2026Ohio720_Thompson_v_Ohio_Bureau_of_Workers_Compensation_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf