Mario D Blue Vs. Bureau Of Workers Compensation

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FILED D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438. BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

ANSWER FILED BY D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ATTORNEY DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION ANSWER

CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/13/2022 AT 10:30 AM. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, AND IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE SPREAD OF COVID-19, THE HEARING SHALL BE HELD BY TELEPHONE. ALL PARTIES AND/OR COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR. PARTIES SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. PARTIES SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS DISCOVERY PROGRESS AND SCHEDULING MATTERS, ETC. NOTICE ISSUED

P1 MARIO D BLUE OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS. PLAINTIFF ENTERS AFFIDAVIT. PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. PRO SE 9999999

POVERTY AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THIS CASE. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE CONTRARY. THE APPLICATION FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MATTER IS HEREBY WAIVED. NOTICE ISSUED

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION MOTION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT FILED. SERVICE REQUEST - SUMMONS BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE DEFENDANT(S).

AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY, FILED

P1 MARIO D BLUE OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS. PLAINTIFF ENTERS AFFIDAVIT. PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT. PRO SE 9999999 11/21/2022 - DENIED

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, FILED 09/12/2022, IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (CMC) HELD 10/13/2022. PLAINTIFF APPEARED PRO SE. DEFENDANT APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PARTIES DISCUSSED CASE. PARTIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE IS SET AS FOLLOWS: DISCOVERY CUTOFF IS 01/13/2023 STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 01/17/2023 AT 10:30 AM. STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 01/17/2023 AT 10:30 AM. ALL PARTIES AND/OR COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR. PARTIES SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. PARTIES SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS DISCOVERY PROGRESS AND SCHEDULING MATTERS, ETC. PLAINTIFF MARIO D. BLUE IS HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, THE COURT WILL ASSUME ANY UNREPRESENTED PARTY WILL BE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL PRO SE. PRO SE LITIGANTS SHALL BE HELD TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARD: "IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES AND THAT THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS LITIGANTS WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL." STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448, ¶ 10 (CITATION OMITTED). IN ADDITION, "PRO SE LITIGANTS ... CANNOT EXPECT NOR DEMAND SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM THE JUDGE WHO IS TO SIT AS IMPARTIAL ARBITER." MALIZIA V. MALIZIA, 9TH DIST. NO. 22565, 2005-OHIO-5186, ¶ 20 (CITATION OMITTED). "[THE] PRO SE LITIGANT IS TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS ONE TRAINED IN THE LAW AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE ADHERENCE TO COURT RULES." TATE V. OWENS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 10TH DIST. FRANKLIN NO. 10AP-1201, 2011-OHIO-3452, ¶15 (CITATION OMITTED). NOTICE ISSUED

MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION MOTION TO DISMISS 10/18/2022 - DENIED

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

DEFENDANT BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED 09/06/2022, IS DENIED. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SEEKS DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIV. R. 12(B)(1) AND (6). IN ORDER TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 12(B)(1), IT MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS ALLEGED ANY CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDED. IT THE INSTANT MATTER, PLAINTIFF SEEKS THE RETURN, IN FULL, OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS FROM TWO SPECIFIC OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ("BWC") CLAIMS. WHILE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CORRECTLY ARGUES THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS EXCLUSIVE, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ALL CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST THE STATE OF OHIO AND ITS AGENCIES SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF, "[C]ASES IN WHICH A PLAINTIFF CLAIMS A STATE AGENCY HAS WRONGFULLY COLLECTED CERTAIN FUNDS ARE CHARACTERIZED GENERALLY AS CLAIMS FOR EQUITABLE RESTITUTION." JABR V. OHIO DEP'T OF JOB & FAMILY SERVS., 2015 OHIO MISC. LEXIS 6925. FURTHER, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS NO JURISDICTION IN CASES WERE AN OBLIGOR SEEKS TO RECOVER FUNDS HE OR SHE ASSERTS WERE IMPROPERLY COLLECTED, SUCH AS UNDER A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, AS THE FUNDS SOUGHT REPRESENT A CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND NOT MONEY DAMAGES. THOMA V. OHIO DEP'T OF JOB & FAMILY SERVS., 2006-OHIO-912, 2006 OHIO MISC. LEXIS 40; CULLINAN V. OHIO DEP'T OF JOB & FAMILY SERVS., 2012-OHIO-4836, 2012 OHIO APP. LEXIS 4235, 2012 WL 4953075 AS TO DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT FOR DISMISSAL UNDER CIV. R. 12(B)(6). THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OUTLINED THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A CIV. R. 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS IN STATE EX REL. BUSH V. SPURLOCK, 42 OHIO ST.3D 77, 80 (1989). A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED WILL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE THE PARTY OPPOSING THE MOTION IS UNABLE TO PROVE ANY SET OF FACTS THAT WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF. KORODI V. MINOT, 40 OHIO APP.3D 1, 3 (1987). TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRET ALL MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE AND ADMITTED, "...AND ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN IN FAVOR OF THE NONMOVING PARTY." BYRD V. FABER, 57 OHIO ST.3D 56, 60 (1991). IN THE INSTANT MATTER, WHILE PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS NOT PLEAD WITH PERFECT CLARIFY, IT IS CLEAR PLAINTIFF SEEKS THE RETURN OF SPECIFIC FUNDS HE ALLEGES WERE WRONGFULLY COLLECTED OR HELD BY THE BWC. "A SUIT THAT SEEKS THE RETURN OF SPECIFIC FUNDS WRONGFULLY COLLECTED OR HELD BY THE STATE IS BROUGHT IN EQUITY. THUS, A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAY PROPERLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER AS PROVIDED IN R.C. 2743.03(A)(2)." SANTOS V. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMP., 101 OHIO ST. 3D 74, 2004-OHIO-28, 801 N.E.2D 441, 2004 OHIO LEXIS 59. NOTICE ISSUED

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED DEFENDANT, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 05/06/2023 - UNKNOWN

MOTION FILED FOR D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION 01/31/2023 - GRANTED

OBEJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION PLAINTIFF ENTERS AFFIDAVIT. PRO SE (9999999)

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECT TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF ENTERS AFFIDAVIT. PRO SE (9999999)

PLAINTIFF OBJECT TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF ENTERS AFFIDAVIT. PRO SE (9999999)

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION, FILED 01/26/2023, IS GRANTED. PARTIES SHALL WORK TOGETHER TO DETERMINE A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION. DEPOSITION SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAY OF THE DATE OF THIS ENTRY. NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO DEFENDANT'S GRANTED MOTION . PRO SE (9999999)

THE COURT IS IN RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT ENTITLED "PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO DEFENDANT'S GRANTED MOTION" AND DEEMS IT A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. DEFENDANT HAS 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ENTRY IN WHICH TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION, IF IT SO CHOOSES. NOTICE ISSUED

NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED 03/23/2023, IS GRANTED. JUDGMENT ENTRY FILED OSJ. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTION & TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES PRO SE (9999999), FILED 03/07/2023, IS DENIED AS MOOT. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDGMENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R. 5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE. NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE PRO SE (9999999) 04/25/2023 - DENIED AS MOOT

THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED ITS DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF THIS CASE ON 09/28/2023, NO ACTION INCONSISTENT WITH APPELLATE COURT JURISDICTION IS TO BE TAKEN IN THIS MATTER UNTIL THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEAL TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS EXPIRED UNDER S.CTR. PRAC. R. 7.01. THIS ENTRY SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXECUTION ON A JUDGMENT WHERE NO STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS IN EFFECT. IF APPROPRIATE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPELLATE PERIOD EXPIRING, THE CASE MAY BE RETURNED AS NECESSARY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO THE DOCKET OF THE ORIGINATING COURT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. UNLESS AS OTHERWISE AGREED UPON IN WRITING BY THE PARTIES, THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE OF RE-INSTATEMENT IS 11/13/2023. THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE BRENDAN J SHEEHAN. NOTICE ISSUED

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER 0086438 OF DEFENDANT, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTION AND TO COMPEL REDISCOVERY RESPONSES

N RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. DANIEL GAUL, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 23-AP-055, ENTRY, ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION IN MARIO D. BLUE V. BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, CUYHAOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL DIVISION, CASE NO. CV-22-967336

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

Affirmed. >Emanuella D. Groves, J., Mary Eileen Kilbane, P.J., and Mary J. Boyle, J., concur. Notice issued.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 04/24/2023 - GRANTED

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HON. DANIEL GAUL SUMPREME COURT CASE NO. 23-AP-055 JUDGMENT ENTRY AND DECISION ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION IN MARIO D. BLUE V. BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GENERAL DIVISION, CASE NO. CV-22-967336.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTION & TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES PRO SE (9999999) 04/24/2023 - DENIED AS MOOT

STATUS CONFERENCE BY PHONE HELD 01/17/2023. PLAINTIFF APPEARED PRO SE. DEFENDANT PRESENT THROUGH COUNSEL. PARTIES DISCUSSED CASE STATUS. PARTIES IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHETHER DISCOVERY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED. CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: DISCOVERY CUTOFF IS EXTENDED 03/10/2023 DISPOSITIVE MOTION CUTOFF IS 04/10/2023 FINAL PRETRIAL SET FOR 06/06/2023 AT 01:30 PM. ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR IN PERSON. COURTROOM 19D. PARTIES SHALL HAVE FULL SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY. TRIAL SET FOR 06/21/2023 AT 10:00 AM. ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR IN PERSON. COURTROOM 19D ALL PARTIES ARE TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT TRIAL BRIEF, WITNESS LISTS, EXHIBIT LISTS, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, MOTIONS IN LIMINE, AND STIPULATIONS SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TRIAL. FINAL PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES WILL NOT BE CONTINUED ABSENT EXTRAORDINARY CAUSE. PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, THE COURT WILL ASSUME ANY UNREPRESENTED PARTY WILL BE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL PRO SE. PRO SE LITIGANTS SHALL BE HELD TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARD: "IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES AND THAT THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS LITIGANTS WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL." STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448, ¶ 10 (CITATION OMITTED). IN ADDITION, "PRO SE LITIGANTS ... CANNOT EXPECT NOR DEMAND SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM THE JUDGE WHO IS TO SIT AS IMPARTIAL ARBITER." MALIZIA V. MALIZIA, 9TH DIST. NO. 22565, 2005-OHIO-5186, ¶ 20 (CITATION OMITTED). "[THE] PRO SE LITIGANT IS TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS ONE TRAINED IN THE LAW AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE ADHERENCE TO COURT RULES." TATE V. OWENS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 10TH DIST. FRANKLIN NO. 10AP-1201, 2011-OHIO-3452, ¶15 (CITATION OMITTED). NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION (S) PLAINTIFF ENTERS SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. PRO SE (9999999)

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE PRO SE (9999999), FILED 04/24/2023, IS DENIED AS MOOT. JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THIS MATTER ON 4/24/2023. NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED, FILED 01/30/2023, IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ENTITLED "PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO DEFENDANT'S GRANTED MOTION", FILED 02/01/2023, IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO OBJECT TO JUDGE DECISION DANIEL A. KIRSCHNER (0086438)