State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Haydocy’s mandamus action, holding that he did not demonstrate a clear legal right to compel OPERS to process his refund without a notarized consent form nor a clear duty on OPERS to do so, and also denied his motion to supplement the record. The court explained that OPERS is authorized by statute and administrative code to prescribe the time and manner of rollover distributions, including the notarized form requirement, and that Haydocy’s due‑process arguments were unsupported.