Ford Motor Co. v. Mosijowsky

Ohio Supreme Court

Ford Motor Co. v. Mosijowsky

338 N.E.2d 762, 44 Ohio St. 2d 109, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 389, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 594

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1975

DocketNo. 75-162

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 338 N.E.2d 762 (Ford Motor Co. v. Mosijowsky) 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

Ford Motor Co. v. Mosijowsky, 338 N.E.2d 762, 44 Ohio St. 2d 109, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 389, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 594 (Ohio 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The issue before us is whether the relevant provisions of R. 0. 4123.519 allow an appeal from the September 25, 1972, order of the deputy administrator as affirmed by the board of review.

In a recent case, State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 280, this court restated its holding that “* * * where the commission’s order constitutes a finding as to the extent of disability, an-appeal is unavailable and mandamus is proper to test the commission’s exercise of its discretion.”

Interpreting the pertinent language of R. C. 4123.519,¹ this court has consistently held that “an order constituting a denial that is absolute and which goes to the basis of claimant’s right to participate in the fund is not a ‘decision as to the extent of disability,’ and is appealable * # State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., supra, at page 280, and cases cited therein.

In the case at bar, however, the September 25, 1972, order of the deputy administrator, allowing the claim and compensating claimant for temporary total disability, “* * * clearly was not an absolute denial of claimant’s right to participate in the fund, but was a determination as to the extent of disability.” State, ex rel. General Motors [111]*111Corp., supra, at page 281. Therefore, an appeal does not lie from the order of the deputy administrator herein.²

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals disallowing the appeal is affirmted.

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Steen, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The issue before us is whether the relevant provisions of R. 0. 4123.519 allow an appeal from the September 25, 1972, order of the deputy administrator as affirmed by the board of review.

In a recent case, State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 280, this court restated its holding that “* * * where the commission’s order constitutes a finding as to the extent of disability, an-appeal is unavailable and mandamus is proper to test the commission’s exercise of its discretion.”

Interpreting the pertinent language of R. C. 4123.519,¹ this court has consistently held that “an order constituting a denial that is absolute and which goes to the basis of claimant’s right to participate in the fund is not a ‘decision as to the extent of disability,’ and is appealable * # State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., supra, at page 280, and cases cited therein.

In the case at bar, however, the September 25, 1972, order of the deputy administrator, allowing the claim and compensating claimant for temporary total disability, “* * * clearly was not an absolute denial of claimant’s right to participate in the fund, but was a determination as to the extent of disability.” State, ex rel. General Motors [111]*111Corp., supra, at page 281. Therefore, an appeal does not lie from the order of the deputy administrator herein.²

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals disallowing the appeal is affirmted.

Judgment affirmed.

0 ’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Steen, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 N.E.2d 762, 44 Ohio St. 2d 109, 73 Ohio Op. 2d 389, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-motor-co-v-mosijowsky-ohio-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack