Summary
In Robinette, the employer appealed an order of the Industrial Commission ordering payment of compensation and medical bills for an injury described as "fibro myositis of the lumbar area of the back," when the claim had originally been allowed for "large hematoma of lower back; abrasions of left forearm."
Summary of this case from Powell v. Valley Mould & Iron/Microdot, Inc.Opinion
No. 78-1386
Decided October 3, 1979.
Workers' compensation — Allowance of additional benefits — Appeal to Court of Common Pleas — R.C. 4123.519.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Richland County.
On May 2, 1973, Lonnie G. Robinette, claimant-appellant herein, while working for General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, injured his low back and left forearm. Robinette's resultant claim filed with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation was allowed for an "injury" described as a "large hematoma of lower back; abrasions of left forearm."
On October 30, 1974, the administrator of the bureau made the following additional order:
"The Administrator orders that***it now be found that the claimant also sustained injury described as `fibro myocitis of the lumbar area of the bank'; the employer is ordered to pay compensation and medical expenses relative to said additional condition, to include authorization for purchase of a back brace in accordance with the previous request for such brace of record.
"***
"The Administrator further finds***that the employer be ordered to award temporary total disability compensation for the period from March 9, 1974, to June 30, 1974***."
General Motors appealed to the regional board of review, and the order of the administrator was affirmed.
The Industrial Commission refused further appeal, prompting an appeal by General Motors to the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County.
Claimant's motion to dismiss the appeal was sustained. The trial court declared in its judgment entry as follows:
"General Motors has filed its appeal from an order of the Administrator allowing for an injury described as `fibro myocitis of the lumbar area of the back' claiming that this addition to the original allowance for injury described as a `large hematoma of lower back-abrasion of left forearm' is a statement of `extent of injury' which is appealable as differentiated from `extent of disability' which is not appealable per [R.C.] 4123.519.
"The allowance of benefits was not an absolute denial of claimant's right to participate in the fund and was a determination as to the extent of disability. Per R.C. 4123.519 an appeal will not lie. This court is without jurisdiction."
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for Richland County reversed the trial court and remanded the cause to that court for further proceedings.
On October 16, 1978, the Court of Appeals certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination for the stated reason that "the judgment entered herein, finding that where a claimant is participating in the State Workers' Compensation Fund, a subsequent order of the Industrial Commission allowing further participation for a condition arising out of the same injury and related to the same part of the body previously allowed in the claim is appealable to court under R.C. 4123.519, is in conflict with a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mahoning County, Seventh Appellate District, entitled Zavatsky v. Stringer, et al., Case No. 77 CA 56, November 3, 1977***and in conflict with a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, Eighth Appellate District, entitled Statler Hilton Hotels v. Williams, et al., Case No. 947,010, December 22, 1977***, which hold that an order allowing a claimant to participate, or to continue to participate in the Fund, is not appealable to court under R.C. 4123.519."
Messrs. Clayman Jaffy, Mr. Stewart R. Jaffy and Mr. Malcolm L. Goodman, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Bradley J. Finn, for appellee administrator.
Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease, Mr. Thomas M. Taggart and Mr. Robert A. Minor, for appellee General Motors.
The Zavatsky and Statler Hilton Hotels cases, supra, were appealed to this court (Nos. 78-76 and 78-241) and, subsequent to the certification of the present case to this court, a decision was rendered on December 7, 1978, reversing the judgments in those cases. In Zavatsky v. Stringer (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 386, this court held in the third paragraph of the syllabus as follows:
"The right of either the claimant or the employer to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Industrial Commission which is `other than a decision as to the extent of disability' is not affected by the fact that the claimant is receiving or will receive compensation or benefits for allowed injuries involving losses or impairments of bodily functions other than those which are the subject of the appeal. Such right of appeal may be exercised by either the claimant or the employer, regardless of whether the decision granting or denying the right to so participate is a part of the same order or is part of a prior order which also grants or denies a right to participate for other injuries involving loss or impairment of other bodily functions."
The present cause falls within the ambit of authority provided by this court's holding in Zavatsky. The decision of the board of review affirming the order of the administrator herein is "other than a decision as to the extent of disability" and is therefore appealable to the Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 4123.519.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
SWEENEY, J., dissents.