In State ex rel. Jones v. Conrad (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 389, 2001 Ohio 207, 750 N.E.2d 583, the claimant, Betty Jones ("Jones"), and the state fund employer filed a settlement agreement. The bureau approved the settlement which commenced the 30-day cooling off period. Five days later, the employer's representative faxed a message to the bureau stating that the employer withdraws from the application. However, the employer did not also send the message to Jones even though R.C. 4123.65(C) requires written notice to the bureau and the claimant. Later, within the cooling off period, the bureau issued an order that provided notice to Jones that the employer had revoked its consent and denied the settlement application. In Conrad, after the cooling off period passed, Jones moved the commission for enforcement of the settlement agreement. a commission SHO denied the motion. On Jones' motion for reconsideration, the commission, splitting two to one, denied Jones' motion to enforce the settlement. Thereafter, Jones filed a mandamus action in this court. Agreeing with the dissenting commissioner, this court issued a writ of mandamus. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Conrad court states that it also agrees with the reasoning of the dissenting commissioner. Thus, the Conrad court affirmed the judgment and ordered the commission to vacate its order denying the application and to issue a new order enforcing this settlement agreement.