Carpenter v. Scanlon

Ohio Supreme Court

Carpenter v. Scanlon

168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 139

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1958

DocketNo. 35404

StatusPublished

This text of 168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 139 (Carpenter v. Scanlon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Scanlon, 168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 139 (Ohio 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question presented here for determination is whether the decision of the Industrial Commission appealed from is “a decision as to the extent of disability,” from which an appeal is precluded by the provision of Section 4123. 519, Revised Code, above quoted.

The employer contends that the decision is one “as to the extent of disability,” and claimant contends that it is “other than a decision as to the extent of disability.”

The finding of the administrator that “the claimant’s generalized arthritic involvement is not related to or the result of the injury in this claim, and, therefore, payment of compensation or for medical services for the treatment of said condition is not authorized,” is clearly not “a decision as to the extent of disability” but rather a finding that the arthritic condition of claimant was not a disability resulting from the injury — an absolute denial of the claim on a jurisdictional ground going to the basis of claimant’s right. From such a decision an appeal is authorized by the above-quoted provision of the Code.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart,' Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The question presented here for determination is whether the decision of the Industrial Commission appealed from is “a decision as to the extent of disability,” from which an appeal is precluded by the provision of Section 4123. 519, Revised Code, above quoted.

The employer contends that the decision is one “as to the extent of disability,” and claimant contends that it is “other than a decision as to the extent of disability.”

The finding of the administrator that “the claimant’s generalized arthritic involvement is not related to or the result of the injury in this claim, and, therefore, payment of compensation or for medical services for the treatment of said condition is not authorized,” is clearly not “a decision as to the extent of disability” but rather a finding that the arthritic condition of claimant was not a disability resulting from the injury — an absolute denial of the claim on a jurisdictional ground going to the basis of claimant’s right. From such a decision an appeal is authorized by the above-quoted provision of the Code.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart,' Taet, Matthias, Bell and Herbert, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 Ohio St. (N.S.) 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-scanlon-ohio-1958.