State ex rel. McMillan v. Dickerson
This text of 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 288 (State ex rel. McMillan v. Dickerson) 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.
Opinion
Although this court has often held that, where a right of appeal is given from an order of an administrative [289]*289agency, such right must be exercised in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed therefor, those decisions have dealt with appeals from administrative agencies to courts and not with interdepartmental appeals.
The administrative agency here has treated the form filed as sufficient to constitute a notice of appeal to the board of review. The question to be determined on that appeal goes to the right of the relator to participate further under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is no showing here that, on appeal, the claim of relator for occupational disease participation will be denied, and so there is no showing, at this point, that relator has been, or necessarily will be, injured. In the event his claim should be denied by the board of review, he has available to him the remedy of appeal to the Industrial Commission.
Eelator has failed to show a clear right to the high prerogative writ of prohibition, and the writ is, therefore, denied.
Writ denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mcmillan-v-dickerson-ohio-1961.