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

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 10, 1975·No. No. 75-162·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] Corp., 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.

Footnotes

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] Corp., 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.

Footnotes

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

338 N.E.2d 762 (Ford Motor Co. v. Mosijowsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related