Summary
In Todd, we held that orders of the commission "may be vacated * * * and the matter * * * set for rehearing * * * until actual institution of a court appeal or the expiration of the 60-day appeal period * * *."
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Baker v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.Opinion
No. 80-1224
Decided March 11, 1981.
Workers' compensation — Allowance of benefits — Appeal to Industrial Commission — Decision of staff hearing officers — May be vacated and set for rehearing, when.
The decision of staff hearing officers made pursuant to R.C. 4121.35 (B)(6), on an appeal to the Industrial Commission taken under R.C. 4123.516 from the order of a regional board of review, may be vacated by the commission and the matter may be ordered set for rehearing before the commission until actual institution of a court appeal or the expiration of the 60-day appeal period provided in R.C. 4123.519.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Appellant, Orlando Todd, is appealing from the denial of his complaint for a writ of prohibition by the Court of Appeals.
On March 18, 1977, appellant sustained injuries in the course of and arising out of his employment with General Motors Corporation, an appellee herein. Appellant applied for workers' compensation benefits, claiming injuries described as contusions to the head and right elbow, abrasion of the left elbow, and strain and sprain to cervical, dorsal and lumbosacral spine, and to the left leg. General Motors, a self insurer, while recognizing the claimed contusions and abrasion, refused to recognize the other claimed injuries. Appellant's claim was heard by a district hearing officer, on January 24, 1978, who found insufficient evidence for any claimed injuries not recognized by General Motors. The Columbus Regional Board of Review affirmed on June 29, 1978. Appeal was then taken to the Industrial Commission and heard by two staff hearing officers pursuant to R.C. 4121.35(B)(6).
R.C. 4121.35(B) provides, in part:
"Staff hearing officers of the commission may hear and decide the following matters:
"***
"(6) Appeals to the commission taken pursuant to section 4123.516 of the Revised Code. The decision of a staff hearing officer shall be the decision of the commission for the purposes of section 4123.519 of the Revised Code."
At a hearing on June 20, 1979, the staff hearing officers modified the order of the regional board to allow appellant's claim for strain and sprain to the cervical, dorsal and lumbosacral spine, and left leg.
General Motors made application for reconsideration of the Industrial Commission's decision, on August 7, 1979, acting within 60 days from the date of that decision. This application was granted August 13, 1979, by the Industrial Commission which vacated the decision of the staff hearing officers and set the matter for rehearing before the commission itself. In December 1979, appellant commenced this action in the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent the commission from rehearing the case. The court denied the writ.
This cause is before this court on appeal as a matter of right.
Mr. John R. Workman, for appellant.
Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease, Mr. Russell P. Herrold, Jr., and Mr. Robert A. Minor, for appellee General Motors.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Solomon H. Basch, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Pursuant to R.C. 4121.35(B)(6), the decision of the staff hearing officers allowing appellant's workers' compensation claim for certain additional conditions was a decision of the Industrial Commission. In State, ex rel. Borsuk, v. Cleveland (1972), 28 Ohio St.2d 224, paragraph one of the syllabus, this court articulated the well-established principle that an administrative board or agency has jurisdiction to reconsider its decisions until the actual institution of a court appeal therefrom or until expiration of the time for appeal. See, also, Diltz v. Crouch (1962), 173 Ohio St. 367. In State, ex rel. Prayner, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 120, the court determined that the principles enunciated in Diltz v. Crouch, supra, conferred jurisdiction on the Industrial Commission to vacate its appealable decisions and to order claims set for hearing before it until the actual institution of an appeal or the expiration of the 60-day appeal period provided in R.C. 4123.519.
The commission, when issuing its order for a rehearing, acted within the 60-day period of continuing jurisdiction recognized by this court. State, ex rel. Prayner, supra. Thus, this is not a case involving usurpation of judicial or quasi-judicial power by a court or officers. Such usurpation is a necessary element for a writ of prohibition to issue. State, ex rel. Rockwell Internat., v. Ford (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 234.
Nor is this a case in which an adequate remedy at law is unavailable. The order and decision of the Industrial Commission on rehearing will either deny or allow the claimant the right to participate in workers' compensation benefits for injuries to a specific part or parts of the body involving impairments of bodily functions on the basis that such were or were not the result of a compensable injury. Such decision and order is other than one as to the extent of disability and is therefore appealable pursuant to R.C. 4123.519. Zavatsky v. Stringer (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 386.
R.C. 4123.519, in part, provides:
"The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the industrial commission or of its staff hearing officer made pursuant to division (B)(6) of section 4121.35 of the Revised Code in any injury or occupational disease case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the court of common pleas of the county in which the injury was inflicted or in which the contract of employment was made if the injury occurred outside the state."
Ordinarily a writ of prohibition may not be sought as a substitute for an appeal. State, ex rel. Heimann, v. George (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 231.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ of prohibition is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.