From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State, ex Rel. Lurty v. Ind. Comm

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Dec 17, 1968
17 Ohio App. 2d 156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

No. 9073

Decided December 17, 1968.

Workmen's compensation — Claim allowed for dermatitis of hands — Award for impairment of earning capacity sought — Extent of disability not an issue — Appeal, not mandamus, proper remedy.

IN MANDAMUS: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Mr. Harold Ticktin, for relator.

Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, Mr. Walter Howdyshell and Mr. Robert J. Dodd, Jr., for respondent Industrial Commission.

Messrs. Arter, Hadden, Wykoff Van Duzer and Mr. Joseph A. Rotolo, for respondent Eaton Yale Towne, Inc.


Relator seeks an award for an impairment in earning capacity under the provisions of Section 4123.57 (A), Revised Code. Relator had a claim allowed for a dermatitis of the hands. He was employed as a "wet" grinder at the time, and since has been a "dry" grinder. The pay for the latter job is 31 cents per hour less than that received by the "wet" grinder.

The relator does not allege any present condition of dermatitis, but seeks compensation for the wage impairment. Since extent of disability is not at issue, the case is governed by the recent case of State, ex rel. Foley, v. Greyhound Lines, 16 Ohio St.2d 6. Appeal rather than mandamus would be the proper remedy.

Writ denied.

TROOP, J. (Presiding), DUFFY and HERBERT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State, ex Rel. Lurty v. Ind. Comm

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Dec 17, 1968
17 Ohio App. 2d 156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

State, ex Rel. Lurty v. Ind. Comm

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE, EX REL. LURTY, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Dec 17, 1968

Citations

17 Ohio App. 2d 156 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)
244 N.E.2d 773