Hook v. Springfield - 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

[Cite as Hook v. Springfield, 94 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2002-Ohio-1490.]

HOOK; GENTIS, EXR., APPELLANT, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as Hook v. Springfield (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1251.]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
(No. 01-519 -- Submitted February 26, 2002 -- Decided April 3, 2002.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 2000CA71.
__________________

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

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

DOUGLAS, J., dissents.

RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent.
__________________

PFEIFER, J., dissenting. I dissent from the majority's decision to declare
that jurisdiction in this case was improvidently allowed. Frederick E. Hook's
claim for benefits that were allegedly owed him should not terminate because he
died. See State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 276, 737
N.E.2d 519. If the Industrial Commission had allowed his claim before his death,
Hook would have received benefits. Why then, if the Industrial Commission
improperly denied benefits, should Hook's estate not be entitled to benefits
through the day of his death? I would reverse the judgment of the court of
appeals and allow the continuance of the action by the estate.

Claimants already face significant structural delays because of the appeals
process, and, as in this case, some of them die before the process is complete.
Although no wrongdoing was alleged in this case, I am troubled that the Industrial
Commission continues to have an incentive to engage in delaying tactics while
waiting for a claimant to die. See State ex rel. Johnston v. Ohio Bur. of Workers'
Comp. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 463, 751 N.E.2d 974. I dissent.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
__________________

Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy, Marc J. Jaffy and
Alan D. Eakins, for appellant.

Robin B. DeBell, Law Director, for appellee city of Springfield.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Barry M. Byron and Stephen L. Byron, urging affirmance for amicus
curiae Ohio Municipal League.
__________________
2