Case Title: State ex rel. Bond v. Velotta Co.

Citation: 2001-Ohio-91

Docket Number: 19991920

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Bond v. Velotta Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 418, 2001-Ohio-91.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BOND, APPELLANT, v. VELOTTA COMPANY ET AL.; 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Bond v. Velotta Co. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 418.] 
Workers’ compensation — Decision of Industrial Commission to allow or 
disallow compensation for additional condition requested subsequent to 
initial allowance of the claim is a right-to-participate question, 
appealable, and therefore not subject to mandamus. 
(No. 99-1920 — Submitted March 13, 2001 — Decided May 23, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-1225. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The workers’ compensation claim of claimant-appellant 
William J. Bond was initially allowed for “lumbar sprain; contusion left 
shoulder.”  Claimant later moved appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, to 
additionally allow his claim for “Grade I-II spondylolisthesis at L5 and S1 by way 
of direct cause or aggravation of pre-existing condition.”  He also moved for 
temporary total disability compensation. 
 
Claimant was examined by, among others, Dr. Arthur L. Hughes, who 
wrote: 
 
“Spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis are congenital.  This means that 
these conditions may have been present since birth.  There is no question that they 
were aggravated by the patient’s extreme obesity.  * * * 
 
“ ‘Aggravation’ of these conditions requires that radiculopathy occur as a 
consequence of the injury.  Pain, without radiculopathy, cannot be counted as 
evidence of aggravation.  Mr. Bond did have evidence of radiculopathy at the 
time he was evaluated by Dr. Perin, though he no longer has clear evidence of 
radiculopathy.  I would, therefore, state there was evidence of aggravation of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
these pre-existing conditions at the time of Dr. Perin’s evaluation, but there is not 
clear evidence of aggravation at the present time.” 
 
A staff hearing officer ultimately allowed the claim for “aggravation of 
pre-existing grade I spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 resolved,” based on Dr. Hughes’s 
report.  (Emphasis added.)  Claimant unsuccessfully contested the inclusion of the 
word “resolved” administratively. 
 
Claimant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.  
The complaint was dismissed after the judge determined that the issue involved 
extent of disability and was therefore not appealable.  The Court of Appeals for 
Hamilton County affirmed, and we declined jurisdiction to hear the case.  Bond v. 
Velotta Co. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1453, 719 N.E.2d 968. 
 
Claimant then filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County.  That court denied the writ, finding that the question was not 
extent of disability, but was one of right to participate—an appealable issue and 
therefore not subject to mandamus. 
 
This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
 
Claimant has not contested in his brief the jurisdictional finding made by 
the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, which is the only issue reached by that 
court.  He instead discusses solely the merits of his case. Claimant’s failure to 
confront the jurisdictional issue is not an impediment to our consideration, 
however, since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised by 
us sua sponte.  State ex rel. Wilson-Simmons v. Lake Cty. Sheriff’s Dept. (1998), 
82 Ohio St.3d 37, 40, 693 N.E.2d 789, 791; Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of 
Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Budget Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 120, 121, 642 N.E.2d 
362, 364.  In this instance, we find that it is an issue that must be addressed. 
 
Questions involving the extent of disability are not appealable.  R.C. 
4123.512(A).  Over the years, the question of what constitutes “extent of 
disability” and, consequently, which workers’ compensation issues are and are not 
January Term, 2001 
3 
appealable has been a contentious one.  Afrates v. Lorain (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 
22, 584 N.E.2d 1175, simplified that debate by declaring that only those decisions 
involving a claimant’s right to participate or to continue to participate in the 
workers’ compensation system are appealable.  Id. at paragraph one of the 
syllabus.  The decision of the commission to allow or disallow an additional 
medical condition is a right-to-participate question and hence appealable.  
McClosky v. Regal Mining, Inc. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 171, 677 N.E.2d 335.  And 
this is appropriate.  The question of claimant’s extent of disability attributable to 
spondylolisthesis is irrelevant unless and until that condition becomes part of the 
claim.  The presence, therefore, of an adequate remedy at law renders the current 
mandamus action untenable. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment. 
__________________ 
 
O’Connor, Acciani & Levy, Marissa L. Godby and Carrie L. Budinger, for 
appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Craigg E. Gould, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________