JEAN M. SKIDMORE Plaintiff-Appellant

vs.

LORAIN GOODWILL INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU OF

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Defendant-Appellee

No. 4094
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LORAIN COUNTY
Slip Opinion
February 25, 1987, Decided

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE NO. 95846 85

 COUNSEL

 

GEORGE H. McKAY, Attorney at Law, for Plaintiff.
LAWRENCE J. HACKETT, Asst. Attorney General, for Defendant.

 JUDGES

 

WILLIAM R. BAIRD, FOR THE COURT, MAHONEY, P.J., GEORGE, J., CONCUR
 AUTHOR: BAIRD

 OPINION

 

 

 
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

 

BAIRD, J.

 

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:

 

This cause came on before the court upon Skidmore's appeal from the order affirming the decision of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services which suspended her benefits. We affirm.

 

Skidmore was a store manager for the Lorain Goodwill Store. After a management change, she was discharged without just cause. She applied for and obtained benefits.

 

The Lorain Goodwill Store offered Skidmore new employment. She refused. The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (O.B.E.S.) Administrator suspended her benefits, pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(b).

 

Skidmore appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the suspension of her benefits. Skidmore applied for further appeal; the Board of Review disallowed her application. She took an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed.

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

 

"The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services decision that claimant refused an offer of suitable employment without just cause, when the alleged offer was from a former employer who had discharged her without just cause, was contrary to its own claims handbook and was therefore contrary to law, unreasonable and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Common Pleas should therefore have reversed its decision."

 

In support of this assignment of error, Skidmore cites the O.B.E.S. Ohio Claims Handbook, Non-Monetary Policy Guide, Section 510.2:

 

"If an individual refuses an offer of work from a former employer, it is a refusal without good cause if the work is still suitable in light of his or her later work experience, unless claimant previously quit such employment with just cause, or was discharged without just cause. * * *."

 

She argues that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the O.B.E.S. must follow its Ohio Claims Handbook, Non-Monetary Police guide and that its failure to do so is grounds for reversal.

 

This is not an accurate statement of the law. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that:

 

"The Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Services is obligated, under R.C. 4141.28(F), to follow the prior decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review."

 

Ash v. Bd. of Review (1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 158, at syllabus paragraph one (emphasis added).

 

In dicta, the court noted that the administrator did not follow the prior decision of the board or his own ruling in the Ohio Claims Handbook. However, it did not hold that the recommendations of the Ohio Claims Handbook were mandatory. Under Rule 1(B) of the Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions,

 

"The syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion states the controlling point or points of law decided in and necessarily arising from the facts of the specific case before the Court for adjudication."

 

The dicta in Ash is not controlling.

 

Skidmore has not presented to the trial court or to this any Board of Review decision in accord with Ohio Claims Handbook, Non-Monetary Policy Guide, Section 510.2. The O.B.E.S. administrator's decision was not contrary to any known board decision and was not unreasonable, unlawful or against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court properly affirmed the decision. R.C. 4141.28(0).

 

Furthermore, Skidmore does not contest the primary basis for the O.B.E.S. referee's decision, i.e., his findings that 1) Skidmore refused Goodwill's offer of employment because she felt it was unsuitable because of her medical problems and 2) the offered employment was within her medical limitations.

 

the Ohio Claims Handbook recommendation was not binding; a further basis exists for finding that Skidmore refused, without good cause, an offer of suitable work. The suspension of benefits and subsequent affirmances are not unreasonable, unlawful, or against the manifest weight of the evidence.

 

The assignment of error is not well taken. the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

 

We order that a special mandate issue out of this court, directing the County of Lorain Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App. R. 27.

 

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E).

 

Costs taxed to appellant.

 

Exceptions.

 

WILLIAM R. BAIRD, FOR THE COURT

 

MAHONEY, P.J., GEORGE, J., CONCUR