Case ID: ohio-ca_27/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
    Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
    N. B. Maxey v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio.
    Decided, November 26, 1917.
    
      Denial of Further Compensation to Injured Employee Because of Development of the Injury—Does Not Confer Jurisdiction on the Common Pleas.
    
    Tbe court of common pleas is without jurisdiction in tbe matter of a denial by tbe industrial commission of an application by an injured employee for further compensation because of a development of his injury occurring subsequent to the making of the original allowance by the commission.
    
      
      Allen C. Roudebush and Joel H. Ward, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Campbell, Hickenlooper, Hauck & Capelle, County Prosecutor, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

In this case the industrial commission found upon the original application and proof of injury that the claimant was entitled under the law to compensation, and it fixed and paid an allowance for the same. A claim for additional compensation was afterwards made because of a subsequent development—the formation of an .abscess—that was claimed to have resulted from the original injury. This claim was denied by the commission which held that the proof was not sufficient to show that the abscess was caused by the injury.

The power and jurisdiction of the board, however, is continuing, and it still has power upon a further rehearing to make such modification or change in its rulings as the facts may justify.

The facts in this ease bring it directly under the case of Snyder v. State Liability Board of Awards, 94 O. S., 342. The court of common pleas therefore had no jurisdiction of the subject of 'the action, and the case should have been dismissed in that court. Instead of so doing, however, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and judgment was entered thereon. This action was not to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Jones, P. J., Gorman, J., and Hamilton, J., all concur.