Clingerman v. Mayfield

6 Ohio App. Unrep. 343
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 24, 1990
DocketCase No. 89-A-1477
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 343 (Clingerman 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
Clingerman v. Mayfield, 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 343 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

BANNON, J.

Appellant, Ronald Clingerman, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his appeal from the industrial commission's order denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits.

The appellant was an oil field worker for the appellee, Carter Jones Lumber Company, where he attended to the pumping operations of oil wells. The appellant alleges that he injured his lower back while working alone in a remote oil field on August 11,1986.

The appellant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits which was denied by the district hearing officer. The board of review reversed the hearing officer, granting appellant's claim. On appeal, the industrial commission reversed the board of review and denied the claim on February 12,1988.

On March 18, 1988, the appellant filed a notice of appeal and complaint in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, the county in which he believed he was injured. However, in the course of discovery, the appellant learned that the oil well where he was injured was actually located in Ashtabula County and not in Geauga County, as he mistakenly believed. The appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, since the injury occurred in Ashtabula County. On December 12, 1988, prior to the court's ruling on appellee's summary judgment motion, the appellant voluntarily dismissed his notice of appeal and complaint from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.

Subsequently, on December 19, 1988, the appellant refiled the identical notice of appeal and complaint in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. On January 17,1989, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was not filed within sixty days' receipt of the industrial commission's decision, as mandated by R.C. 4123.519.

On August 31, 1989, the trial court granted appellee's motion and dismissed the appeal. This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents one assignment of error:

"The trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction."

The assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court dismissing the appeal is affirmed.

Appellant asserts two reasons why the trial court erred in dismissing this appeal:

"D The "saving statute;" R.C. 2305.19, applies to this case and that he had a right to voluntarily dismisshis appeal in Geauga County and refile it in Ashtabula County after the sixty-day time limit had expired for filing an appeal to common pleas court in a workers' compensation case; and

”2) R.C. 4123.519, effective November 3, 1989, has been amended to provide that, where an affidavit of a workers' compensation case has been filed in the wrong common pleas court, the trial court shall transfer the action to a court of a county having jurisdiction."

In Jenkins v. Keller, Admr. (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 122, the court stated in paragraph four of the syllabus:

"Courts of Common Pleas do not have inherent jurisdiction in workmen's compensation cases but only such jurisdiction as is conferred on them under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act."

Both sides of this appeal have cited Lewis v. Connor (1985), 21 Ohio St. 3d 1, and Hartsock v. Chrysler Corp. (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 171.

In Lewis, supra, the court held that the right of review granted by R.C. 4123.519 must be classed as a remedy -- a statutorily created remedy -- and not as a limitation on a substantive right. The courtheld that R.C. 4123.519 contains a time limitation upon a remedy, not a limitation on a substantive right created by statute Therefore, in the absence of any provision to the contrary in R.C. 4123.519, the saving statute applies to a timely filed notice of appeal in a workers' compensation case

In Hartsock supra, the court said that nothing in Lewis diminishes the jurisdictional vitality of the county of injury requirement of R.C. 4123.519. The court further held that by their terms," the Ohio Civil Rules cannot extend jurisdiction Civ. R. 82. In Hartsock, the appeal [345]*345was dismissed as mistakenly filed in the appellant's county of residence instead of the county where the injury occurred. The court clearly stated that, "We continue to hold that the requirement of R.C. 4123.519 that the notice of appeal be filed in the county specified in the statute is jurisdictional."

Applying Lewis and Hartsock then to the facts of the case sub judice, the saving statute does apply to workers' compensation appeals, but the appeal must have been filed in the jurisdictionally proper court in the first placa As the court said in Hartsock with the identical question, but in the context of an appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(O), in Hansford v. Steinbacher (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 72:

"*** We conclude the statute controls subject-matter jurisdiction and, therefore, an appeal can only be perfected if the requisites of R.C.4141.28(O) are satisfied.

"The reasoning that controlled in Hansford applies here as well.***"

The appellant here was injured in Ashtabula County. The workers' compensation appeal was filed in Geauga County. Appellant voluntarily dismissed his appeal and refiled it in Ashtabula County, the county having jurisdiction, some ten months after his claim was finally denied by the industrial commission, obviously far beyond the sixty-day time limitation provided in R.C. 4123.519. The Geauga County Common Pleas Court having no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the appeal never was perfected and, therefore, could not be the proper subject of R.C. 2305.19, the saving statute

Appellant notes, however, that during the pendency of the appeal in this county, R.C. 4123.519 was amended, effective November 3, 1989, and now provides in pertinent part:

"(A) The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the industrial commission or of its staff hearing officer made pursuant to division (BX6) of section 4121.35 of the Revised Code in any injury or occupational disease case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the court of common pleas of the county in which the injury was inflicted or in which the contract of employment was made if the injury occurred outside the state, or in which the contract of employment was made if the exposure occurred outside the state In the event that no common pleas court has jurisdiction for the purposes of an appeal by the use of the jurisdictional requirements described in this paragraph, the appellant then may resort to the venue provisions in the Rules of Civil procedure to vest jurisdiction in a court. If the claim is for an occupational disease the appeal shall be to the court of common pleas of the county in which the exposure which caused the disease occurred. Like appeal may be taken from a decision of a regional board from which the commission or its staff hearing officer has refused to permit an appeal to the commission. Notice of the appeal shall be filed by the appellant with a court of common pleas within sixty days after the date of the receipt of the decision appealed from or the date of receipt of the order of the commission refusing to permit an appeal from a regional board of review.

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

Related

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.
9 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1937)
Jenkins v. Keller
216 N.E.2d 379 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1966)
Lewis v. Connor
487 N.E.2d 285 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1985)
Hansford v. Steinbacher
514 N.E.2d 1385 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1987)
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
522 N.E.2d 489 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)
Hartsock v. Chrysler Corp.
541 N.E.2d 1037 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ohio App. Unrep. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clingerman-v-mayfield-ohioctapp-1990.