Whitehurst v. Perry Twp. - 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

WHITEHURST, APPELLANT, V. PERRY TOWNSHIP ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as Whitehurst v. Perry Twp. (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.

(No. 96-1114Submitted May 20, 1997Decided July 16, 1997.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APE09-
1180.
__________

Mary Jo Cusack, for appellant.

Scott, Scriven & Wahoff, William J. Wahoff and Richard Goldberg;
Loveland & Brosius and William Loveland, for appellee Perry Township.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Administrator, Bureau of Workers'
Compensation.
__________

The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.

MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent.

PFEIFER, J., dissents separately.

DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. In his opinion affirming in part and dissenting in
part in the court of appeals proceeding in the case at bar, Judge Deshler said that
"* * * the failure of the trial court to address the defendant's motion for leave to
file a complaint and rendering it `moot' for failure to show excusable neglect,
when a constitutional challenge was before the court, was in my view error." I
agree with Judge Deshler and would, on this issue, allow the appeal and reverse
the judgment of the court of appeals. I would affirm the court of appeals in its
holding that R.C. 4123.512 is constitutional.

RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

PFEIFER, J., dissenting. There is no question that Whitehurst did not file a
complaint within the statutory time period. See R.C. 4123.512(D). There is
considerable question as to whether his failure to file a complaint was due to
excusable neglect or other good cause. See Zuljevic v. Midland-Ross Corp.
(1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 116, 16 O.O.3d 140, 403 N.E.2d 986.
The
Zuljevic court stated that "it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss R.C.
4123.519 [R.C. 4123.519 was amended and renumbered R.C. 4123.512 in 145
Ohio Laws, Part II, 3153-3156, effective October 20, 1993] proceedings on the
basis of a claimant's failure to act where he has not been given notice and an

2

opportunity to show cause why the proceedings should not be dismissed and
judgment entered against him." Zuljevic, 62 Ohio St.2d at 120, 16 O.O.2d at 142,
403 N.E.2d at 988. Such notice and opportunity to show cause do not appear to
have been given in this case. I believe the trial court should have granted
Whitehurst's motion for leave to plead and compelled Whitehurst to address
whether there was excusable neglect or other good cause for his failure to file a
timely complaint.
The
Zuljevic court was attempting to prevent claimants from "disregard[ing]
with impunity [their] statutory obligation to timely prosecute." Zuljevic, 62 Ohio
St.2d at 119, 16 O.O.2d at 142, 403 N.E.2d at 988. The record does not suggest
that Whitehurst is such a claimant. Instead, the record suggests that Whitehurst is
(1) the victim of a notice of appeal that does not provide good notice to a
layperson, see Appendix [not included in Internet version]; (2) the victim of
appellate procedure that does not require the notice of appeal to be served on
counsel despite App. R. 13(B), which requires the notice of appeal to be served on
counsel; and (3) the victim of appellate procedure that shifts the burden of proof to
the party that won at the administrative level.

3

I would allow the appeal and reverse and remand to the trial court with
instructions to determine whether Whitehurst's failure to file a complaint was
based on excusable neglect or other good cause.

4