Summary
In Rockwell, we held that a writ of prohibition would issue to prevent a court of common pleas from proceeding in an underlying action where it had no jurisdiction over such action.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Ernest Auto Body Shop, v. FuerstOpinion
No. 79-1252
Decided February 20, 1980.
Prohibition — To prohibit court from proceeding in action — Writ allowed, when — Court without jurisdiction whatsoever to act.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County.
On May 27, 1976, George Workman filed an application for workers' compensation alleging that he sustained an injury to his lower back in the course of his employment with Rockwell International, appellant herein. His claim was disallowed by the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation for failure to establish an injury sustained in the course of and arising out of his employment. Workman appealed to the Canton Regional Board of Review. On April 29, 1977, the board affirmed the order of disallowance. Workman filed an appeal from that order to the Industrial Commission. On March 8, 1978, the commission refused to hear the appeal.
On April 24, 1978, Workman filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County. It stated that he was appealing from the order of the Industrial Commission. The action was assigned to Judge Donald R. Ford, appellee herein. On June 5, 1978, appellant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission refusing to entertain an appeal from a regional board of review. On June 7, 1978. Workman filed a motion requesting permission to amend his notice of appeal. Judge Ford granted the motion on July 20, 1978. The amended notice of appeal stated that Workman was appealing from the order of the regional board of review.
Appellant then filed this action in the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County seeking a writ prohibiting Judge Ford from proceeding in the underlying action. The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
The cause is now before the court as a matter of right.
Messrs. Porter, Wright, Morris Arthur, Mr. Warren H. Morse, and Ms. Roberta Y. Bavry, for appellant.
Messrs. Flask Policy and Mr. Constant A. Prassinos, for appellee.
A writ of prohibition will issue only when: "(1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must amount to an unauthorized usurpation of judicial power; and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in an injury for which there is no adequate remedy." State, ex rel. D.P. L. Co., v. Kistler (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 21, 22.
There is no question that appellee is a judicial officer who is about to exercise judicial power. The exercise of that judicial power would also amount to an unauthorized usurpation of power because the Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction over the underlying action. The requirements for an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission in R.C. 4123.519 are mandatory and must be strictly and fully complied with to vest jurisdiction in the Court of Common Pleas. R.C. 4123.519 does not authorize an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Industrial Commission refusing to entertain an appeal from a regional board of review. Cadle v. General Motors Corp. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 28. Thus, since the commission refused to entertain an appeal from the regional board of review, Workman's notice of appeal from that decision is fatally defective and fails to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Common Pleas.
Workman's amended notice of appeal is equally defective since it was not filed within 60 days of his receipt of the commission's order refusing to permit the appeal, another jurisdictional requirement of R.C. 4123.519. Since the Court of Common Pleas is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, the availability or adequacy of a remedy to prevent the resulting injustice is immaterial to this court's supervisory jurisdiction to prevent the usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court. State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 326.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the writ of prohibition is allowed.
Judgment reversed and writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, and HOLMES, JJ., concur.