Elwell v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Elwell v. Indus. Comm.

168 N.E. 148, 32 Ohio App. 390, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 184, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 605

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1929

DocketNo 2167

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.E. 148 (Elwell v. Indus. Comm.) 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

Elwell v. Indus. Comm., 168 N.E. 148, 32 Ohio App. 390, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 184, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 605 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*185 LLOYD, J.

The right to file a petition in the court of common pleas in a case such as this, is governed by Section 1465-90, G. C. This section provides that if the Industrial Commission finds that it has no jurisdiction to inquire into the claim or, in other words, disallow the claim, the plaintiff may, within thirty days after receipt of notice of such finding, file an application with the Commission for a rehearing of his claim. It further provides for the, manner of introducing evidence. If the Commission again finds it has no jurisdiction of the claim, and no authority to inquire into the extent of disability or amount of compensation claimed, then a petition may be filed in the court of common pleas within sixty days after receipt of notice of such action of the Commission. The amended petition of plaintiff clearly shows that the application for rehearing was not filed within the thirty day period provided by statute. The plaintiff attempts to excuse the failure to file an application for rehearing within the time limited, on the ground that she was not aware that the same had to be filed within any particular time, but since one may not avoid the effect of a statutory provision simply by pleading, ignorance thereof, it is evident that this would not operate as a waiver of the explicit provisions in this regard of Sec. 1465-90 G. C. Since the application of plaintiff fqr re-hearing was filed more than thirty days after receiving notice from the Industrial Commission of the final disposition of the claim filed by her, the apDlication for a rehearing was properly denied by the Commission, and it is apparent that plaintiff lostjher right to file a petition on appeal in the court of common pleas, and that therefore the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment of the court of common pleas is .affirmed.

Richards’and Williams, JJ, concur.

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

*185 LLOYD, J.

The right to file a petition in the court of common pleas in a case such as this, is governed by Section 1465-90, G. C. This section provides that if the Industrial Commission finds that it has no jurisdiction to inquire into the claim or, in other words, disallow the claim, the plaintiff may, within thirty days after receipt of notice of such finding, file an application with the Commission for a rehearing of his claim. It further provides for the, manner of introducing evidence. If the Commission again finds it has no jurisdiction of the claim, and no authority to inquire into the extent of disability or amount of compensation claimed, then a petition may be filed in the court of common pleas within sixty days after receipt of notice of such action of the Commission. The amended petition of plaintiff clearly shows that the application for rehearing was not filed within the thirty day period provided by statute. The plaintiff attempts to excuse the failure to file an application for rehearing within the time limited, on the ground that she was not aware that the same had to be filed within any particular time, but since one may not avoid the effect of a statutory provision simply by pleading, ignorance thereof, it is evident that this would not operate as a waiver of the explicit provisions in this regard of Sec. 1465-90 G. C. Since the application of plaintiff fqr re-hearing was filed more than thirty days after receiving notice from the Industrial Commission of the final disposition of the claim filed by her, the apDlication for a rehearing was properly denied by the Commission, and it is apparent that plaintiff lostjher right to file a petition on appeal in the court of common pleas, and that therefore the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment of the court of common pleas is .affirmed.

Richards’and Williams, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.E. 148, 32 Ohio App. 390, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 184, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elwell-v-indus-comm-ohioctapp-1929.