State Ex Rel. Mullen v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Mullen v. Industrial Commission

27 N.E.2d 487, 137 Ohio St. 17, 137 Ohio St. (N.S.) 17, 17 Ohio Op. 305, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 414

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1940

Docket27627

StatusPublished

This text of 27 N.E.2d 487 (State Ex Rel. Mullen v. Industrial Commission) 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

State Ex Rel. Mullen v. Industrial Commission, 27 N.E.2d 487, 137 Ohio St. 17, 137 Ohio St. (N.S.) 17, 17 Ohio Op. 305, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 414 (Ohio 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The additional allegations relating to abuse of discretion summarized are that the Industrial Commission willfully ignored the testimony of a physician called on -«behalf of the claimant and of another physician who testified on behalf of the commission, and arbitrarily chose January 23, 1930, the date of the first alleged “injury,” without regard to medical facts and testimony. Considered in the most favorable light for the relatrix, the averred testimony contributes nothing to establish abuse of discretion. The second amended petition contains the identical allegations of the original petition that the four accidental exposures proximately caused decedent’s death. In adopting the date of the first alleged injury instead of the last or an intermediate date, the Industrial Commission cannot be charged with an abuse of discretion or failure to perform a duty imposed by law.

Section 1465-82, General Code, fixes, “eight years after the date of the injury” as the maximum period for the payment of compensation for death. (Italics ours.)

In view of the express language of that section the Industrial Commission was not required to adopt either the date of disability or the date of the “last injury,” as urged by the relatrix, in determining the time from which the eight-year limitation ran.

The demurrer will be sustained and a writ of mandamus will be denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

The additional allegations relating to abuse of discretion summarized are that the Industrial Commission willfully ignored the testimony of a physician called on -«behalf of the claimant and of another physician who testified on behalf of the commission, and arbitrarily chose January 23, 1930, the date of the first alleged “injury,” without regard to medical facts and testimony. Considered in the most favorable light for the relatrix, the averred testimony contributes nothing to establish abuse of discretion. The second amended petition contains the identical allegations of the original petition that the four accidental exposures proximately caused decedent’s death. In adopting the date of the first alleged injury instead of the last or an intermediate date, the Industrial Commission cannot be charged with an abuse of discretion or failure to perform a duty imposed by law.

Section 1465-82, General Code, fixes, “eight years after the date of the injury” as the maximum period for the payment of compensation for death. (Italics ours.)

In view of the express language of that section the Industrial Commission was not required to adopt either the date of disability or the date of the “last injury,” as urged by the relatrix, in determining the time from which the eight-year limitation ran.

The demurrer will be sustained and a writ of mandamus will be denied.

Writ denied.

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.E.2d 487, 137 Ohio St. 17, 137 Ohio St. (N.S.) 17, 17 Ohio Op. 305, 1940 Ohio LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mullen-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1940.