 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.8/7/1996
REECE, Judge.
Appellant, Mabel Martin, appeals from the decision of the court of common pleas dismissing her administrative appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
In 1984, Mabel Martin worked for the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Weather-Seal Division, as a saw operator. On Wednesday, June 6, 1984, Martin was injured at work. She sustained an acute cervical strain, fractured ribs and a tear of the right rotator cuff. Martin filed a workers' compensation claim and was awarded the right to participate for her conditions. In September 1993, Martin filed a claim for temporary total disability compensation due to the injury to her right shoulder. Louisiana-Pacific objected to the motion, alleging Martin had Voluntarily retired in 1990.
On May 17, 1995, a hearing was conducted before an Industrial Commission district hearing officer. The hearing officer awarded Martin temporary total disability compensation covering the period from May 15, 1990 to September 14, 1994. Louisiana-Pacific appealed. On June 29, 1995, an Industrial Commission staff hearing officer granted Louisiana-Pacific's appeal and reversed the May 17, 1995 decision. The hearing officer determined Martin retired on August 1, 1990, selecting regular retirement over disability retirement in executing her retirement agreement. Therefore, Martin was not eligible for temporary total disability compensation.
Martin appealed the staff hearing officer's decision to the Industrial Commission. Her appeal was refused on July 27, 1995. Thereafter, Martin appealed tsthe Summit County Court of Common Pleas. On January 18, 1996, the court of common pleas dismissed Martin's appeal because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to R.C. 4123.512. This appeal followed.
Martin assigns the following errors:
"1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.
"2. The trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to determine a factual issue properly before it on appeal of a workers' compensation case as provided by O.R.C. Section 4123.512.
"3. Whether or not one has voluntarily resigned from employment or been forced to involuntarily leave employment because of injury-induced disability is a question of fact which may be determined by action in the common pleas court after the exhaustion of administrative remedies before the Industrial Commission."
Because Martin's assignments of error are essentially three forms of the same claimed error, i.e., that the court of common pleas improperly dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we will address them collectively.
R.C. 4123.512(A) provides:
"The claimant or the employer may appeal an order of the industrial commission made under division (E) of section 4123.511 * * * of the Revised Code in any injury or occupational disease case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the court of common pleas of the county in which the injury was inflicted or in which the contract of employment was made if the injury occurred outside the state, or in which the contract of employment was made if the exposure occurred outside the state."
The Supreme Court of Ohio has interpreted this provision (formerly R.C. 4123.519 ) narrowly, determining that only those decisions involving a claimant's right to participate or to continue to participate in the State Insurance Fund are appealable to the courts of common pleas. Felty v. AT & T Technologies, Inc. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 234, 236, 602 N.E.2d 1141, 1143-1144, citing Af
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.
|
|