From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Bradley, v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 14, 1973
33 Ohio St. 2d 26 (Ohio 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-519

Decided March 14, 1973.

Workmen's compensation — Application for additional award for violation of specific safety requirement — Mailed to Bureau of Workmen's Compensation — Timely filed, when — Received by bureau employee before filing deadline — Mandamus.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

This is an appeal from the allowance of a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

On February 14, 1967, Peter Scott Bradley sustained injuries in the course of his employment, for which the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation made an award of workmen's compensation and medical expenses.

On February 11, 1969, Bradley mailed to the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation a C-8 application for additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement which was stamped "received" by the Industrial Commission on February 26, 1969.

The commission refused to hear and consider this additional award application, contending that it was not timely filed with the Industrial Commission within two years of the injury as required by commission Rule IC/WC-21-20(A).

Claimant then filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County to compel the commission to accept and process his C-8 application as if filed within the two-year period required by commission rules.

The facts were stipulated, and those relevant are summarized, as follows:

1. One Arthur Henderson was employed by the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation in the Cleveland district office, from February 13, 1968, to June 25, 1971. Among his duties was the pickup of mail from the post office for the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, the Cleveland Regional Board of Review and the Industrial Commission. He was authorized to sign for registered and certified mail.

2. This mail was then taken to a file room where it was opened and distributed by bureau employees to either the bureau, the Regional Board of Review or the Industrial Commission.

3. On February 13, 1969, Arthur Henderson signed a certified mail receipt for the C-8 application involved herein.

The Court of Appeals allowed the writ of mandamus and the cause is now before this court as an appeal as of right.

Messrs. Rollins Mesesson and Mr. N.D. Rollins, for appellee.

Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Stephen T. Parisi and Mr. Thomas P. Hayes, for appellant.


The question before this court is whether the improperly addressed application should be considered as filed with the Industrial Commission at the time it was received by an employee of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, since that bureau was responsible for receipt and distribution of commission mail.

First, it is observed that the two-year filing requirement under consideration here appears in the commission's Rule IC/WC-21-20(A), which was adopted pursuant to its rule-making authority under R.C. 4121.11 and 4121.13. It should also be noted that the commission, by Rule IC/WC-21-08(C)(1), specifically provides for the filing of applications by mail.

The Industrial Commission, as a matter of actual practice, has constituted the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation its agent for mail receipt and distribution. It has made an actuality of R.C. 4121.121, which provides generally that "the Administrator of the Bureau of Workman's Compensation shall be responsible for the discharge of all administrative duties imposed upon the Industrial Commission * * *." Thus, the commission has implemented its rule permitting filings by mail so that such filings are of necessity first received by a bureau employee.

As indicative of the attitude of the commission in that respect, one of the stipulations of the parties reads, in part: "* * * once said mail * * * was received by * * * Henderson, it was in the possession of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, which, under Section 4121.121 of the Revised Code of Ohio, was the administrative agent of the Industrial Commission of Ohio."

The judgment of the Court of Appeals, allowing the writ of mandamus, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Bradley, v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 14, 1973
33 Ohio St. 2d 26 (Ohio 1973)
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Bradley, v. Indus. Comm

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. BRADLEY, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 14, 1973

Citations

33 Ohio St. 2d 26 (Ohio 1973)
294 N.E.2d 883