Case Title: State ex rel. Nerlinger v. AJR Ents., Inc.

Citation: 2007-Ohio-6438

Docket Number: 20062363

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Nerlinger v. AJR Ents., Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 314, 2007-Ohio-6438.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. NERLINGER, APPELLANT, v. AJR  
ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Nerlinger v. AJR Ents., Inc.,  
116 Ohio St.3d 314, 2007-Ohio-6438.] 
Workers’ compensation – R.C. 4123.522 – Failure to receive notice of hearing – 
Industrial Commission does not abuse discretion by denying claimant’s 
request for delayed appeal despite claimant’s affidavit asserting failure to 
receive notice of hearing – Commission is not required to accept truth of 
statements in affidavit or to explain reasons for finding statements 
unpersuasive. 
(No. 2006-2363—Submitted November 28, 2007 – Decided December 13, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 05AP-1207, 2006-Ohio-6143. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal as of right, we examine the Industrial Commission of 
Ohio’s authority to reject a workers’ compensation claimant’s affidavit as 
unpersuasive.  Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, John P. Nerlinger, was hired by appellee AJR 
Enterprises, Inc., on September 22, 2002.  Two days later, he allegedly burned his 
hand at work.  He claims that he reported the incident to the employer the next 
day, yet he waited nearly a year before filing a workers’ compensation claim. 
{¶ 3} On September 9, 2003, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation 
allowed Nerlinger’s claim without a hearing.  AJR filed a timely appeal, asserting 
that its first notice of any accident or injury was when Nerlinger filed his claim.  
On October 11, 2003, appellee commission sent a notice of hearing to Nerlinger 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
at the address he had listed on his claim application.  Nerlinger did not attend the 
October 30, 2003 hearing, and the district hearing officer denied his claim for lack 
of medical evidence corroborating the alleged injury.  A copy of that order was 
also mailed to Nerlinger at that same address.  Nerlinger did not appeal. 
{¶ 4} Nerlinger later retained legal counsel.  In January 2005, counsel 
moved for relief pursuant to R.C. 4123.522.  That statute allows a party to file a 
belated appeal (1) if the party fails to receive notice of “any hearing, 
determination, order, award, or decision,” (2) the lack of receipt was “due to 
cause beyond the control and without the fault or neglect of such person or his 
representative,” and (3) “such person or his representative did not have actual 
knowledge of the import of the information contained in the notice.”  Nerlinger’s 
motion claimed that he did not receive the October 11, 2003 notice of hearing or 
the October 30, 2003 order denying his claim.  He claimed that the failure to 
receive those documents was through no fault of his own, and he attached his 
affidavit repeating those assertions to his motion. 
{¶ 5} A staff hearing officer denied Nerlinger’s motion after finding that 
both documents sent by the commission had been “properly mailed to the correct 
address of the injured worker.”  Nerlinger’s motion for reconsideration was 
denied. 
{¶ 6} Nerlinger filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County.  The magistrate believed that the commission’s order was 
deficient because it did not make an express determination on the credibility of 
Nerlinger’s affidavit.  The magistrate recommended that a writ issue and that the 
cause be returned to the commission for further consideration and an amended 
order.  The court of appeals did not adopt that report, holding that the commission 
was not required to explain why it had found a particular piece of evidence 
unpersuasive.  It accordingly denied the writ, prompting Nerlinger’s appeal as of 
right to this court. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} As we explained in State ex rel. Cherryhill Mgt., Inc. v. Indus. 
Comm., 116 Ohio St.3d 27, 2007-Ohio-5508, 876 N.E.2d 525, the commission is 
exclusively responsible for evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence 
and need not explain why an affidavit is unpersuasive.  We therefore affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals . 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Butkovich, Crosthwaite & Gast Co., L.P.A., Daryl A.W. Crosthwaite, and 
Stephen P. Gast, for appellant. 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________