 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cassidy v. Conrad3/16/2000
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
On June 22, 1998, Barbara K. Cassidy filed a complaint with James Conrad, Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") and Guardian Photo Finish as the named defendants. The complaint was intended to appeal determinations made in regard to Ms. Cassidy's right to participate in the workers' compensation system in Ohio. The complaint was a refiling of a 1996 complaint in regard to her right to participate in the workers' compensation system with respect to a condition described as "severe depressive disorder."
Service of process on the 1998 complaint was obtained upon the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") and upon the commission. An answer was filed on behalf of Guardian Photo Finish without formal service of process having been obtained.
On August 3, 1998, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of Guardian Photo Finish. Guardian Photo Finish alleged that service of process had never been obtained upon Guardian Photo Finish when the original complaint had been filed in 1996. The motion further alleged that the previous complaint had been voluntarily dismissed prior to commencement of the action with respect to Guardian Photo Finish and that therefore the 1998 complaint was barred.
On August 4, 1998, Guardian Photo Finish filed a motion asking that the 1996 complaint be stricken and that the previous dismissal be stricken.
In response, counsel for Ms. Cassidy filed a series of documents outlining a long history of litigation involving the parties and demonstrating that Guardian Photo Finish had been aware of the filing of the 1996 complaint. Service on the 1996 complaint had been attempted by certified mail, but had been returned "moved, left no address." Service apparently had been obtained on the BWC and the commission.
The trial court ultimately granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment by means of a decision filed March 29, 1999. The trial court then journalized a judgment entry finding that Barbara Cassidy was not entitled to participate in the workers' compensation system for the condition of severe depressive disorder.
Ms. Cassidy has now pursued a direct appeal, assigning a single error for our consideration:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT GUARDIAN PHOTO FINISH'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED JUNE 5, 1996, HER 41 (A)(1) DISMISSAL FILED JUNE 23, 1997 AND IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEREIN PLAINTIFF BARBARA K. CASSIDY'S ACTION HAD BEEN COMMENCED OR ATTMEPTED TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER IT WAS FILED.
Counsel for Barbara K. Cassidy was pursuing an appeal to the common pleas court of an adverse decision in regard to her right to participate in the workers' compensation system. Such appeals are governed by R.C. 4123.512. R.C. 4123.512(A) includes the following provision:
The filing of the notice of appeal with the court is the only act required to perfect the appeal.
R.C. 4123.512(D) includes the following provision:
The claimant shall, within thirty days after the filing of the notice of appeal, file a petition containing a statement of facts in ordinary and concise language showing a cause of action to participate or to continue to participate in the fund and setting forth the basis for the jurisdiction of the court over the action. Further pleadings shall be had in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, provided that service of summons on such petition shall not be required. *
R.C. 4123.512(B) places a duty upon the ad
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|