The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that the five-year limit on the Ohio Industrial Commission's oversight of a workers' compensation claim does not affect an appeal properly filed in court. This decision came as a reversal of a previous ruling by the Third District Court of Appeals, which had terminated an appeal by a Whirlpool Corporation employee due to the passage of five years since his last compensation payment.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy, writing for the unanimous Court, compared the appeals process to a relay race. She explained that once an appeal is filed in common pleas court, jurisdiction shifts from the Industrial Commission to the trial court. The decision permits Brian Caldwell to continue his appeal related to a work injury sustained in 2015.
"Caldwell did all that was required of him under R.C. 4123.512 to have his day in court," stated Chief Justice Kennedy.
Joining her opinion were Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters, along with Tenth District Court of Appeals Judge Michael C. Mentel.
Caldwell was injured at Whirlpool in 2015 and received permanent-partial-disability compensation for a hernia until January 2017. In December 2019, he sought additional coverage for back injuries claimed to be linked to the original incident. After administrative denials, Caldwell appealed within the statutory deadline but voluntarily dismissed and refiled his case later.
Whirlpool argued that Caldwell's appeal expired five years after their last payment under R.C. 4123.52, but this argument was rejected by both Caldwell and eventually by the Supreme Court.
The Court analyzed several statutes governing workers' compensation appeals and concluded that once an appeal is filed in common pleas court under R.C. 4123.512, it falls outside the commission's jurisdiction governed by R.C. 4123.52.
The ruling allows Caldwell's case to proceed in trial court without being subject to administrative time limits.
"Therefore, Caldwell’s properly filed case proceeded in the trial court under R.C. 4123.512," stated the opinion.