Westenberger v. Industrial Commission

20 N.E.2d 252, 135 Ohio St. 211, 135 Ohio St. (N.S.) 211, 14 Ohio Op. 56, 1939 Ohio LEXIS 346
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1939
Docket27320
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 20 N.E.2d 252 (Westenberger 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
Westenberger v. Industrial Commission, 20 N.E.2d 252, 135 Ohio St. 211, 135 Ohio St. (N.S.) 211, 14 Ohio Op. 56, 1939 Ohio LEXIS 346 (Ohio 1939).

Opinion

By the Court.

The Industrial Commission contends that, inasmuch as that part of Section 1465-68, General Code, which includes members of partnerships as employees within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was declared unconstitutional by this court in the case of Goldberg v. Industrial Commission, 131 Ohio St., 399, 3 N. E. (2d), 364, the widow has no basis for an action for compensation.

Counsel for the widow contend that, having accepted premiums based upon the payroll which included the decedent’s salary, the commission is estopped to deny the constitutional validity of the last paragraph of Section 1465-68, General Code.

We agree with counsel for both parties to this litigation that the question of estoppel was not before this court in the Goldberg case.

In 1925 the General Assembly amended Section 1465-68, General Code (111 Ohio Laws, 218), to include *213 coverage of members of partnerships under certain circumstances. The Industrial Commission was thereafter compelled to accept premiums from partnerships and to pay for injury to or death of partner-employees. In 1936 this court declared unconstitutional the amended portion of Section 1465-68, General Code, and the commission was.thereupon deprived of rights and duties under that amended section.

The rights of employees and their dependents in the Workmen’s Compensation Law are not governed by common law, but are only such as may be conferred by the General Assembly. 42 Ohio Jurisprudence, page 575, Section 2; Industrial Commission v. Kamrath, 118 Ohio St., 1, 160 N. E., 470; Bozzelli v. Industrial Commission, 122 Ohio St., 201, 171 N. E., 108.

When this court declared Section 1465-68, General Code, unconstitutional, the duties of the Industrial Commission ceased with reference to such partner-employee claims, and the rights of claimants likewise terminated.

Judgment reversed and final judgment for appellant.

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

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

Related

Armstrong v. John R. Jurgenson Co.
2011 Ohio 6708 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Arrington v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
849 N.E.2d 1004 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006)
Schultz v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
772 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2002)
Carmen v. Link
695 N.E.2d 28 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997)
Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co.
418 S.E.2d 738 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1992)
Job v. Cleveland Dance Center
577 N.E.2d 396 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)
Hunter Memorial United Methodist Church v. Millirons
597 S.W.2d 845 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1980)
Kuehnl v. Industrial Commission
25 N.E.2d 682 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 N.E.2d 252, 135 Ohio St. 211, 135 Ohio St. (N.S.) 211, 14 Ohio Op. 56, 1939 Ohio LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westenberger-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1939.