From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weisenburger v. Central Foundry

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 26, 1979
60 Ohio St. 2d 178 (Ohio 1979)

Summary

In Weisenburger v. Central Foundry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 178 [14 O.O.3d 412], the claimant suffered a ruptured disc for which he was awarded benefits.

Summary of this case from Davis v. Connor

Opinion

No. 79-347

Decided December 26, 1979.

Workers' compensation — Appeal from board of review to Court of Common Pleas — Decision appealable, when.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Defiance County.

On July 1, 1971, while employed by General Motors Corporation at its Central Foundry Division in Defiance County, Ronald L. Weisenburger, appellant herein, suffered a lumbosacral strain, resulting in a ruptured disc, for which he received workers' compensation benefits.

Subsequently, on September 20, 1974, Weisenburger filed a motion with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation asking for additional allowance for a psychiatric condition related to his initial injury. The administrator of the bureau found that the "emotional disturbance***is a residual condition and/or disability resulting from and causal to the injury sustained in this claim," and "ordered that such condition and/or disability be allowed and covered by this claim."

On General Motors' application for reconsideration the administrator vacated his previous order and disallowed Weisenburger's claim for additional allowance for a psychiatric condition "for the reason that the claimant has failed to prove that said condition was the direct and proximate result of the injury in this claim by causation, aggravation or acceleration."

The regional board of review affirmed the order of disallowance, and the Industrial Commission refused further appeal.

Weisenburger's appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County was dismissed, the court finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Messrs. Perry, Riseling Boyuk and Mr. Jerry L. Riseling, for appellant.

Messrs. Bugbee Conkle and Mr. Gregory B. Denny, for appellee.


The sole question before this court is whether the decision of the board of review affirming the order of the administrator is one other than a decision as to the extent of disability and, therefore, appealable under R.C. 4123.519.

R.C. 4123.519, as applicable here, provides:
"The claimant***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***."

In Zavatsky v. Stringer (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 386, this court held, in the third paragraph of the syllabus, that:

"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."

Appellee, General Motors, admits that the "factual pattern in the case of Williams v. Statler Hilton,***a companion case decided by the court with Zavatsky, is substantially similar to the facts in the case at bar."

"Response" brief of appellee filed to the brief of appellant herein.

This cause is governed by Zavatsky v. Stringer, supra. The decision of the board of review is appealable to the Court of Common Pleas (R.C. 4123.519) as "other than a decision as to the extent of disability." See Robinette v. Daugherty (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 1.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas.

Judgment reversed.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, DOWD, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.

DOWD, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for P. BROWN, J.


Summaries of

Weisenburger v. Central Foundry

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 26, 1979
60 Ohio St. 2d 178 (Ohio 1979)

In Weisenburger v. Central Foundry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 178 [14 O.O.3d 412], the claimant suffered a ruptured disc for which he was awarded benefits.

Summary of this case from Davis v. Connor
Case details for

Weisenburger v. Central Foundry

Case Details

Full title:WEISENBURGER, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL FOUNDRY DIV., GENERAL MOTORS CORP.…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 26, 1979

Citations

60 Ohio St. 2d 178 (Ohio 1979)
398 N.E.2d 563

Citing Cases

Long v. Quarto Mining Co.

Additionally, development of a secondary, additional condition arising from the same accident relates to a…

Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.

Later, the employee develops severe depression as a result of her injury. Again she applies for benefits,…