Clifford v. Daugherty

• Decision Date: 25 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1415,79-1415
• Citation: 406 N.E.2d 517,62 Ohio St.2d 414
• Parties: , 16 O.O.3d 443 CLIFFORD, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. DAUGHERTY, Admr., et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 414

62 Ohio St.2d 414

406 N.E.2d 517, 16 O.O.3d 443

CLIFFORD, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. DAUGHERTY, Admr., et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

No. 79-1415.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 25, 1980.

Larrimer & Larrimer and Craig Aalyson, Columbus, for appellee and cross-appellant.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Gerald H. Waterman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants and cross-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In order to avoid the constitutional question determined by the trial court, the Court of Appeals construed the six-year limitation period of R.C. 4123.52 to be inapplicable to claimant. Though we affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment, we reach the constitutional issue since the Court of Appeals erred in construing the statute.

I.

Prior to January 1, 1979, R.C. 4123.52, in relevant part, provided:

"The jurisdiction of the industrial commission over each case shall be continuing, and the commission may make such modification or change with respect to former findings or order with respect thereto, as, in its opinion is justified. No such modification or change nor any finding or award in respect of any claim shall be made with respect to disability, compensation, dependency, or benefits, after six years from the date of injury in the absence of the payment of compensation for total disability under section 4123.56 of the Revised Code, except in cases where compensation has been paid under section 4123.56, 4123.57, or 4123.58 of the Revised Code, then ten years from the date of the last payment of compensation or from the date of death * * *."

Based on this provision, ¹ appellants lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any application or request filed by claimant more than six years after the date of his injury unless claimant had been paid disability compensation under R.C. 4123.56, 4123.57 or 4123.58 during this six-year period. ² There is no dispute that the application for disability compensation and requests for continued payments for medical expenses at issue would be filed more than six years after the date of claimant's injury. Moreover, it was stipulated in the trial court that claimant was not paid disability compensation by appellants under R.C. 4123.56, 4123.57 or 4123.58 within six years from the date of his injury.

The Court of Appeals determined that this six-year limitation period was inapplicable, based upon its determination that "compensation" within the meaning of R.C. 4123.52 "includes wages paid by an employer to a totally disabled employee." ³ Therefore, since claimant was both totally disabled and paid wages by his employer during two periods in 1971, i. e., within six years from the date of his injury, the Court of Appeals ruled that appellants were empowered to entertain claimant's application and requests filed more than six years after the date of claimant's injury.

The Court of Appeals' construction of R.C. 4123.52 is incorrect. Wages received from an employer are not disability compensation, nor are they paid under R.C. 4123.56, 4123.57 or 4123.58. Since the provision at issue unambiguously expresses the General Assembly's intent, the Court of Appeals should have strictly construed and applied it. Provident Bank v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 105-106, 304 N.E.2d 378; Sears v. Weimer (1944), 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N.E.2d 413, paragraph five of the syllabus. Thus, we hold that appellants correctly applied R.C. 4123.52 in ruling that they could not entertain claimant's above application and requests.

II.

In his cross-appeal, claimant contends that R.C. 4123.52 as applied to claimant violates the Equal Protection Clause of Section 26 of Article II of the Ohio Constitution. The stipulated facts reveal that if claimant had not been paid wages in 1971, he would have received temporary total disability compensation under R.C. 4123.56, which would have empowered appellants to entertain claimant's application and requests filed more than six years after the date of his injury. Thus, we must determine whether it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for appellants to refuse to entertain claimant's application for disability compensation and requests for continued payment for medical expenses filed more than six years after the date of his injury for the sole reason that claimant, within six years from the date of his injury, accepted wages during his periods of temporary total disability in lieu of receiving disability compensation.

Under the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, ⁴ a legislative classification, which implicates neither a suspect classification nor a fundamental interest, is valid if it is rational, i. e., if it is not wholly arbitrary and bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible governmental objective. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393; Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563; National Tube Co. v. Peck (1953), 159 Ohio St. 98, 111 N.E.2d 11, paragraph six of the syllabus; Porter v. Oberlin (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 143, 205 N.E.2d 363, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. Moreover, such a classification is presumed to be valid and will be upheld unless no reasonable state of facts can be conceived to support it. ...