Opinion
No. 74-929
Decided June 4, 1975.
Workmen's compensation — Award of temporary total disability — Subsequent award of ten percent permanent partial disability — Appeal — Prohibition not available to review judgment.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
On November 27, 1968, appellant, Hiram Gonzales, sustained injuries in the course of and arising out of his employment with intervenor-appellee Ford Motor Company. Appellant's workmen's compensation claim was recognized by Ford, a self-insuring employer; the company has provided appellant with both medical benefits and compensation for a brief period of temporary total disability.
On August 1, 1970, appellant filed an application for permanent partial disability. The Industrial Commission subsequently determined that appellant had a ten percent permanent partial disability. Not only did Ford not contest that finding, but it admitted in its answer to appellant's prohibition complaint in the instant action that "* * * it is an established fact that relator [appellant] has a permanent partial disability of 10 percent."
Appellant eventually filed his election, pursuant to R.C. 4123.57, to receive compensation based upon an alleged impairment of his earning capacity resulting from the November 27, 1968, injuries. In the fall of 1971, the Deputy Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation denied this claim. The denial was predicated on the finding "* * * from proof of record that the claimant's impairment in his earnings is due to conditions unrelated to his injury." However, the Cleveland Regional Board of Review reversed, and awarded appellant temporary partial disability benefits on the basis of a ten percent impairment of earning capacity. The Industrial Commission affirmed the board's order.
In February 1973, Ford perfected an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County from the commission's affirmance of the award. The appeal was allegedly pursuant to R.C. 4123.519. The case was assigned to the personal docket of appellee Judge Patton. In March 1973, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal "* * * for the reason that this court [the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County] lacks jurisdiction because this appeal involves a question as to the extent of disability." The motion was denied by the appellee judge.
The denial of the motion to dismiss triggered the present prohibition litigation in the Court of Appeals. The prohibition action, brought by appellant herein, was based on the same ground asserted in the motion to dismiss which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the complaint.
Appellant has brought the cause before this court pursuant to an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Ticktin, Baron, Kabb Valore and Mr. Kenneth S. Kabb, for appellant.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Richard A. Goulder, for appellee Judge John T. Patton.
Messrs. Squire, Sanders Dempsey and Mr. Thomas G. Hermann, for appellee Ford Motor Company.
The first sentence of R.C. 4123.519 provides, in part: "The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the Industrial Commission in any injury case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the Court of Common Pleas * * *." This statutory provision clearly vests Courts of Common Pleas with general jurisdiction over decisions of the Industrial Commission in injury cases. Ford's action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County is undisputably an attempt to have that court review a decision of the Industrial Commission in an injury case. Appellee judge made an initial determination, in denying appellant's motion to dismiss, that the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to review the decision.
The impropriety of reviewing that determination in a prohibition action is stated in the third paragraph of the syllabus in State, ex rel. Miller, v. Court of Common Pleas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N.E.2d 464:
"A court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction on issue raised, and a party challenging its jurisdiction has a remedy at law in appeal from an adverse holding of the court that it has such jurisdiction, and may not maintain a proceeding in prohibition to prevent the prosecution of such action." See, also, State, ex rel. Dickison, v. Court of Common Pleas (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 179, 277 N.E.2d 210; State, ex rel. Indus. Comm., v. Holt (1938), 134 Ohio St. 25, 15 N.E.2d 543.
Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.