Case Title: State ex rel. Hinds v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 1999-Ohio-472

Docket Number: 19962804

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. HINDS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hinds v. Indus. Comm. (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Where Industrial Commission has ruled that further 
participation in the workers’ compensation system is barred by R.C. 
4123.52’s statute of limitations, that decision must be challenged by way of 
appeal. 
(No. 96-2804 — Submitted January 13, 1999 — Decided February 10, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD12-1598. 
 
Appellant-claimant, Carl L. Hinds, has a prosthetic hand as a result of a 
1974 industrial injury sustained with appellee GenCorp, Inc.  In 1994, he applied 
for payment of medical bills related thereto.  Appellee Industrial Commission of 
Ohio denied the payment, after finding that claimant’s workers’ compensation 
claim had expired under R.C. 4123.52’s ten-year statute of limitations. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
payment.  The court of appeals denied the writ, after finding that claimant had an 
adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal to common pleas court. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Thompson Hine & Flory, L.L.P., and Robert W. Myers, for appellee 
GenCorp, Inc. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Decisions going to a claimant’s right to participate, or to 
continue to participate, in the workers’ compensation system must be appealed to 
common pleas court.  Afrates v. Lorain (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 584 N.E.2d 
1175.  Thus, where the commission, as here, has ruled that further participation is 
barred by R.C. 4123.52’s statute of limitations, that decision must be challenged 
by way of appeal.  Valentino v. Keller (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 173, 38 O.O.2d 412, 
224 N.E.2d 748; State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 18 
Ohio St.3d 281, 18 OBR 333, 480 N.E.2d 807; State ex rel. Superior’s Brand 
Meats, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 277, 586 N.E.2d 1077. 
 
Claimant’s reliance on State ex rel. Saunders v. Metal Container Corp. 
(1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 85, 556 N.E.2d 168, and State ex rel. Morrow v. Indus. 
Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 236, 643 N.E.2d 118, is misplaced.  These cases 
dealt only with the commission’s authority to modify prior orders, not with R.C. 
4123.52’s statute of limitations.  They are not, therefore, dispositive. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents.