Summary
In Carpenter v. Scanlon, 168 Ohio St. 139, it was argued that a finding that "the arthritic condition is not related to [the] injury" was not appealable under Section 4123.519.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Mansour v. Indus. CommOpinion
No. 35404
Decided June 18, 1958.
Workmen's compensation — Appeal to Common Pleas Court — Section 4123.519, Revised Code — "Decision as to the extent of disability" construed — Finding claimant's ailment not related to injury — Denial on jurisdictional ground and appealable.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County.
Carpenter, appellee herein, filed a claim for workmen's compensation with the Industrial Commission. The Administrator of Workmen's Compensation allowed the claim for abrasions to the right knee, fingers, distal joint surface and left forearm, but found that claimant's generalized arthritic involvement was not related to or the result of the injury, and that payment of compensation or for medical services for the treatment of such condition was not authorized. The Columbus Regional Board of Review affirmed the order of the administrator, finding that "the arthritic condition is not related to injury," and the Industrial Commission refused a further appeal.
Claimant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the decision of the Industrial Commission under authority of Section 4123.519, Revised Code (126 Ohio Laws, 1015, 1026), which became effective October 5, 1955, and read in part (and which now so reads as subsequently amended, effective September 7, 1957 [127 Ohio Laws, 898, 900]):
"The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the Industrial Commission in any injury 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." (Emphasis added.)
The employer, General Motors Corporation, Frigidaire Division, the appellant herein, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the decision of the Industrial Commission, from which the appeal was attempted, is a decision as to the extent of disability and an appeal therefrom is not authorized by the above-quoted provision. The court sustained the motion.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for further proceedings according to law.
The allowance of a motion to certify the record brings the cause to this court for review.
Messrs. Schwenker, Teaford, Brothers Solsberry, for appellee.
Mr. William Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. John R. Barrett, for Joseph J. Scanlon, Administrator of Workmen's Compensation.
Messrs. Cowden, Pfarrer, Crew Becker, for appellant.
The question presented here for determination is whether the decision of the Industrial Commission appealed from is "a decision as to the extent of disability," from which an appeal is precluded by the provision of Section 4123.519, Revised Code, above quoted.
The employer contends that the decision is one "as to the extent of disability," and claimant contends that it is " other than a decision as to the extent of disability."
The finding of the administrator that "the claimant's generalized arthritic involvement is not related to or the result of the injury in this claim, and, therefore, payment of compensation or for medical services for the treatment of said condition is not authorized," is clearly not "a decision as to the extent of disability" but rather a finding that the arthritic condition of claimant was not a disability resulting from the injury — an absolute denial of the claim on a jurisdictional ground going to the basis of claimant's right. From such a decision an appeal is authorized by the above-quoted provision of the Code.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.