Workers Compensation: The Supreme Court of Ohio Addresses “Right to Participate” Issue
By Chad A. Fine The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a court of common pleas does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an Industrial Commission decision wherein the Industrial Commission refused to exercise continuing jurisdiction to make a finding of fraud.
By way of background, the Ohio Revised Code specifically grants jurisdictional review to courts of common pleas for decisions involving an injured worker’s “right to participate” in the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation fund. However, the Ohio Revised Code does not grant jurisdictional review for decisions that relate to the extent of an injury. In other words, the Industrial Commission’s decision to either grant or deny additional benefits under an already existing claim is not subject to an appeal to a court of common pleas.
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s recent decision in Benton held that a decision by the Industrial Commission which refused to exercise continuing jurisdiction to make a finding of fraud is not a “right to participate” issue. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that decisions regarding fraud may not be appealed to the courts of common pleas.
In the Benton case, the injured worker was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Apparently, the injured worker was driving for the employer to pick up medical forms from a client. The injured worker then filed for workers’ compensation benefits and the claim was allowed. The employer did not appeal the allowance of the claim to the court of common pleas within the required sixty-day limitation period.
Thereafter, however, the employer filed a motion that alleged the injured worker had misrepresented her purpose for driving, and that she was not in the course and scope of employment when she was injured. The motion further asked the Industrial Commission to find fraud and terminate the injured worker’s participation in the fund. The Industrial Commission found no evidence of fraud and thus declined to exercise continuing jurisdiction to reconsider the allowance of the injured worker’s claim. As a result, the employer appealed the motion to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The injured worker filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and alleged that common law fraud does not fall under the “right to participate” provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. The motion to dismiss was granted. The employer appealed to the First District Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the appeal and held that the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from Industrial Commission decisions that refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction to make a finding of fraud. This decision was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The Supreme Court of Ohio ultimately applied the Nicholls decision which held that the Industrial Commission may exercise continuing jurisdiction over cases of new and changed circumstances, fraud, clear mistake of fact, clear mistake of law, or error by an inferior tribunal. Further, the Supreme Court applied relevant portions of the Ohio Revised Code, which grant subject matter jurisdiction to the courts of common pleas to hear cases involving the “right to participate” in the fund. The Supreme Court held that a decision by the Industrial Commission not to excercise continuing jurisdiction when fraud is alleged is not a “right to participate” issue. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Industrial Commission decision that refused to exercise continuing jurisdiction where fraud was alleged.
Feel free to contact Chad Fine or any of the workers’ compensation attorneys at RBS with any further questions regarding The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Benton.
|
