Summary
affirming the denial of a request for a writ vacating the exercise of continuing jurisdiction
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm'nOpinion
No. 39127
Decided April 28, 1965.
Workmen's compensation — Claim allowed by administrator — Appeal by self-insuring employer — Industrial Commission — Right to vacate its orders — Control over orders until institution of appeal or expiration of time for appeal.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
The relator, Prayner, an employee of a self-insuring employer, filed a claim for workmen's compensation which was allowed by the Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation. The employer appealed from the decision to the Cleveland Regional Board of Review which affirmed the decision of the administrator. The employer then appealed from the decision of the regional board to the Industrial Commission.
The commission refused the appeal but, upon application for reconsideration, vacated its former order refusing an appeal and ordered the claim set for hearing. A hearing was had and continued to a later stipulated date.
Prior to the date set for hearing, relator instituted in the Court of Appeals the present action in mandamus seeking a writ requiring the Industrial Commission to vacate its order by which it vacated its former order refusing the employer's appeal and to reinstate in full force and effect its former order refusing the appeal of the employer from the order of the regional board, contending that the commission was without authority to vacate its order made in favor of the employee.
The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Alan Meltzer, for appellant.
Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. Robert M. Duncan, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Messrs. Baker, Hostetler Patterson, Mr. Russell E. Leasure and Mr. Robert G. Stinchcomb, for appellee employer.
The Industrial Commission has control over its orders until the actual institution of an appeal therefrom or until the expiration of the time for such an appeal. See Diltz v. Crouch, Dir. of Liquor Control, 173 Ohio St. 367.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER, and BROWN, JJ., concur.