State ex rel. Hamlin v. Indus. Comm. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Hamlin, Appellee, v. Industrial Commission of
Ohio et al., Appellants.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hamlin v. Indus. Comm. (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Workers' compensation -- Denial of claimant's occupational
disease claim -- Death of claimant during pendency of
appeal abates action.
(No. 92-2388 -- Submitted September 14, 1993 -- Decided
December 8, 1993.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
91AP-1133.
On December 20, 1989, a district hearing officer of
appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio allowed the
occupational disease claim of appellee-claimant, Mary A.
Hamlin, finding that she had contracted bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome in the course of her employment with appellant, Inland
Division, General Motors Corporation. On appeal, the regional
board of review vacated the hearing officer's order and
disallowed the claim. On August 12, 1991, commission staff
hearing officers affirmed the board. It is undisputed that on
September 16, 1991, an unsigned copy of the original signed
staff hearing officers' order was mailed to the claimant.
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of
Appeals for Franklin County, alleging evidentiary and
procedural deficiencies in the staff hearing officers' order.
In response, appellants filed alternative motions for dismissal
and summary judgment that asserted, among other things, that
claimant had an adequate remedy at law by way of an R.C.
4123.519 appeal. The appellate court agreed that an R.C.
4123.519 appeal was available, but found that the sixty-day
appeal period had not yet begun to run. The court reasoned
that the unsigned copy of the staff hearing officer's order did
not constitute notice of the commission's decision and,
therefore, its receipt by claimant could not have triggered the
appeal period. Finding further that a declaratory judgment
action could not compel the commission to provide claimant with
a signed copy of the staff hearing officers' order, the court
issued a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to "issue

proper notice to relator regarding its decision herein by
mailing to relator a signed copy of the final decision issued
by the staff hearing officers with respect to relator's right
to participate in the state insurance fund."
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of
right. On March 18, 1993, this court was notified of
claimant's death from non-industrial causes.

Sambol & Associates and Marylee Gill Sambol, for appellee.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Cordelia A. Glenn and
Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants
Industrial Commission and Patrick G. Mihm, Administrator,
Bureau of Workers' Compensation.
Thompson, Hine & Flory, Janis B. Rosenthal and Philip B.
Cochran, for appellant Inland Division, General Motors
Corporation.

Per Curiam. This controversy was generated by the
commission's denial of claimant's workers' compensation claim.
No one disputes that the commission's decision involves
claimant's "right to participate" in the workers' compensation
program and is, therefore, appealable. Afrates v. Lorain
(1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 22, 584 N.E.2d 1175. Underlying this
dispute is a single question: Has claimant's time for appeal to
the common pleas court run?
Claimant's death moots that inquiry. Admittedly, the
procedural issue before this court was initiated by the
employer, and, as a general rule, an employee's death does not
destroy the employer's right to appeal a ruling adverse to it.
Seabloom Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Mayfield (1988), 35 Ohio
St.3d 108, 519 N.E. 2d 358. In Seabloom, the district hearing
officer had allowed the claimant's workers' compensation claim
and, during the course of the employer's appeal to the
Industrial Commission, claimant died from unrelated causes. We
upheld the employer's right to continue its cause of action and
preserved the employer's opportunity to prove that claimant's
earlier injury was unrelated to his employment.
In the present case, however, the employer's appeal is an
outgrowth of the occupational disease claim that claimant
sought to keep alive. If claimant were to prevail on the issue
before us, it would simply mean that claimant could, if she
were alive, appeal the claim's disallowance to common pleas
court. This underlying "right to participate" question,
however, has been abated by claimant's death. We find the
following language persuasive: "Where there is a denial of
benefits to an employee and upon appeal * * * he dies before
disposition of the action, the action abates by force of the
Workmen's Compensation statutes and the general statutes of
abatement and revivor, i.e., R.C.2311.21 and 2311.26, are
inapplicable." Ratliff v. Flowers (1970), 25 Ohio App. 2d 113,
116, 54 O.O.2d 213, 215, 266 N.E.2d 848, 850.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is
reversed and the writ of mandamus is denied.
Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.