 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baltimore Ravens8/15/2000
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
The issue in this consolidated appeal is whether the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of appellant, Self-Insuring Employers Evaluation Board ("SIEEB"), ordering appellee, Baltimore Ravens, Inc. ("the Ravens"), to pay the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation $50,000 as a civil penalty for the Ravens' continued refusal to pay workers' compensation awards for five former Cleveland Browns football players. For the reasons that follow, we answer in the affirmative.
On March 25, 1999, the Ravens filed a notice of appeal with SIEEB and a submission of notice of appeal (pursuant to R.C. 119.12) with the trial court from the March 10, 1999 decision of SIEEB that imposed the $50,000 fine. R.C. 119.12 permits parties adversely affected by an order of an agency issued pursuant to any other adjudication to appeal to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
On April 29, 1999, SIEEB filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to set forth a cause of action for which relief may be granted. SIEEB argued that the court of common pleas lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal because SIEEB's orders and decisions are part of the bureau of workers' compensation and, therefore, excluded from the appeals process provided in R.C. Chapter 119. R.C. 119.01(A) provides, in pertinent part, that: "Sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code do not apply to actions of the industrial commission or the bureau of workers' compensation under sections 4123.01 to 4123.94 of the Revised Code with respect to all matters of adjudication."
The Ravens responded with a memorandum contra on May 11, 1999. In its memorandum, the Ravens argued that SIEEB was an independent adjudicatory body and only part of the bureau of workers' compensation for administrative purposes.
On May 27, 1999, while the appeal was pending and before the trial court had ruled on the motion to dismiss, SIEEB vacated its decision of March 10, 1999 and notified the Ravens that a new hearing would take place on June 14, 1999. SIEEB indicated that its previous findings were being vacated in order that a determination of the matter could be made at a record hearing held in accordance with R.C. Chapter 119. See R.C. 4123.35.2(C) ("If the board determines, after a hearing conducted pursuant to Chapter 119. of the Revised Code and the rules of the bureau, that the employer has failed to correct the deficiencies within the time fixed by the board or is otherwise in violation of this chapter, the board shall recommend to the administrator revocation of an employer's status as a self-insuring employer or such other penalty which may include, but is not limited to, probation, or a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars for each failure.") [Emphasis added.]
On June 9, 1999, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, as SIEEB was a part of the bureau of workers' compensation for administrative purposes, not for adjudicatory purposes. Despite this ruling by the trial court, the hearing scheduled for June 14, 1999 went forward. The claims administrator appeared for the Ravens, but the Ravens were not represented by counsel and did not present any evidence or defenses.
On July 8, 1999, SIEEB mailed its new order (erroneously dated June 8, 1999) to the Ravens, again ordering them to pay a total of $50,000 in fines ($10,000 for each of the five cases). The Ravens appealed that order to the trial court on July 19, 1999. The trial c
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|