Alaqua v. Mayfield

Ohio Court of Appeals

Alaqua v. Mayfield

524 N.E.2d 528, 37 Ohio App. 3d 140, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10591

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1987

Docket52824

StatusPublished

This text of 524 N.E.2d 528 (Alaqua v. Mayfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alaqua v. Mayfield, 524 N.E.2d 528, 37 Ohio App. 3d 140, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10591 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the employee’s worker’s compensation appeal, because the employer filed for bankruptcy, with this entry:

“Bankruptcy. Dismissal subject to reinstatement. Statute of Limitations Waived.”

We sustain both of the employee’s assigned errors, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. The trial court’s dismissal of the case did not accomplish the stay usually mandated during a party’s pending bankruptcy. See Section 362(a)(1), Title 11, U.S. Code; Window Systems, Inc. v. Gilmore (Nov. 15, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No. 48139, unreported; Donovan v. Sunmark Industries, Inc. (Aug 4, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 45700, unreported. Additionally, the court lacked power to grant the purported waiver of the jurisdictional appeal time prescribed by R.C. 4123.519 for filing a compensation appeal.

Further, a bankruptcy proceeding does not invoke an automatic stay for pending Ohio workers’ compensation claims. Section 362(b)(4), Title 11, U.S. Code; In re Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. (C.A. 6, 1981), 660 F. 2d 1108, 1114. The trial court should proceed with its consideration of the employee’s claim.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Markus, C.J., Nahra and Prya-tel, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On its own motion, the trial court dismissed the employee’s worker’s compensation appeal, because the employer filed for bankruptcy, with this entry:

“Bankruptcy. Dismissal subject to reinstatement. Statute of Limitations Waived.”

We sustain both of the employee’s assigned errors, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. The trial court’s dismissal of the case did not accomplish the stay usually mandated during a party’s pending bankruptcy. See Section 362(a)(1), Title 11, U.S. Code; Window Systems, Inc. v. Gilmore (Nov. 15, 1984), Cuyahoga App. No. 48139, unreported; Donovan v. Sunmark Industries, Inc. (Aug 4, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 45700, unreported. Additionally, the court lacked power to grant the purported waiver of the jurisdictional appeal time prescribed by R.C. 4123.519 for filing a compensation appeal.

Further, a bankruptcy proceeding does not invoke an automatic stay for pending Ohio workers’ compensation claims. Section 362(b)(4), Title 11, U.S. Code; In re Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co. (C.A. 6, 1981), 660 F. 2d 1108, 1114. The trial court should proceed with its consideration of the employee’s claim.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Markus, C.J., Nahra and Prya-tel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 N.E.2d 528, 37 Ohio App. 3d 140, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 10591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alaqua-v-mayfield-ohioctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack