an estimated total cost to exceed one hundred million dollars. O.R.C. § 4123.35(0). 6 . It was within the BWC’s discretion to determine whether Messer had met the requirements to self-insure the Casino Project. See Ohio Adm.Code § 4123-19-16(B) (“The purpose of this rule is to establish standards by which the administrator may permit a responsible self-insuring employer to self-insure a construction project entered into by the responsible self-insuring employer pursuant to division (O) of section 4123.35 of the Revised Code.”); see also Ohio Adm.Code § 4123-19-16(C) (acknowledging that ”[t]he administrator's authority to grant self-insured status for a construction project is permissive”); State ex rel. Vaughn v. Indus. Commission of Ohio, 69 Ohio St.2d 115, 119, 430 N.E.2d 1332 (1982) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Medcorp, Inc. v. Ryan, 10th
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion recognizing that creditor has burden of determining the accuracy of scheduling claims in determining whether filing proof of claim is necessary recognizing court discretion in determining reasonable fee under rule 11 recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award recognizing that the bwc has substantial discretion in determining whether to revoke a companys selfinsured status