Weisenburger v. Central Foundry Div., General Motors Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Weisenburger v. Central Foundry Div., General Motors Corp.

398 N.E.2d 563, 60 Ohio St. 2d 178, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 412, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 523

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1979

DocketNo. 79-347

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 398 N.E.2d 563 (Weisenburger v. Central Foundry Div., General Motors Corp.) 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

Weisenburger v. Central Foundry Div., General Motors Corp., 398 N.E.2d 563, 60 Ohio St. 2d 178, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 412, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 523 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question before this court is whether the decision of the board of review affirming the order of the administrator is one other than a decision as to the extent of disability and, therefore, appealable under R. C. 4123.519.¹

In Zavatsky v. Stringer (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 386, this court held, in the third paragraph of the syllabus, that:

“The right of either the claimant or the employer to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Industrial Commission which is ‘other than a decision as to the extent of disability’ is not affected by the fact that the claimant is receiving or will receive compensation or benefits for allowed injuries involving losses or impairments of bodily functions other than those which are the subject of the appeal. Such right of appeal may be exercised by either the claimant or the employer, regardless of whether the decision granting or denying the right to so participate is a part of the same order or is part of a prior order which also grants or denies a right to participate for other injuries involving loss or impairment of other bodily functions.”

Appellee, General Motors, admits that the “factual pattern in the case of Williams v. Statler Hilton, * * *a companion case decided by the court with Zavatsky, is substantially similar to the facts in the case at bar.”²

This cause is governed by Zavatsky v. Stringer, supra. The decision of the board of review is appealable to the Court of Common Pleas (R. C. 4123.519) as “other than a decision as to the extent of disability.” See Robinette v. Daugherty (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 1.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas.

[180]*180 Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, Dowd, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Dowd, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for P. Brown, J.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole question before this court is whether the decision of the board of review affirming the order of the administrator is one other than a decision as to the extent of disability and, therefore, appealable under R. C. 4123.519.¹

In Zavatsky v. Stringer (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 386, this court held, in the third paragraph of the syllabus, that:

“The right of either the claimant or the employer to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Industrial Commission which is ‘other than a decision as to the extent of disability’ is not affected by the fact that the claimant is receiving or will receive compensation or benefits for allowed injuries involving losses or impairments of bodily functions other than those which are the subject of the appeal. Such right of appeal may be exercised by either the claimant or the employer, regardless of whether the decision granting or denying the right to so participate is a part of the same order or is part of a prior order which also grants or denies a right to participate for other injuries involving loss or impairment of other bodily functions.”

Appellee, General Motors, admits that the “factual pattern in the case of Williams v. Statler Hilton, * * *a companion case decided by the court with Zavatsky, is substantially similar to the facts in the case at bar.”²

This cause is governed by Zavatsky v. Stringer, supra. The decision of the board of review is appealable to the Court of Common Pleas (R. C. 4123.519) as “other than a decision as to the extent of disability.” See Robinette v. Daugherty (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 1.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas.

[180]*180 Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, Dowd, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Dowd, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for P. Brown, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 N.E.2d 563, 60 Ohio St. 2d 178, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 412, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisenburger-v-central-foundry-div-general-motors-corp-ohio-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack