Miraglia v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-774,79-774 |
| Citation | 399 N.E.2d 1234,15 O.O.3d 163,61 Ohio St.2d 128 |
| Parties | , 15 O.O.3d 163 MIRAGLIA, Appellee, v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On March 12, 1975, Russi Miraglia (hereinafter "Miraglia"), an employee of appellant, B. F. Goodrich Company (hereinafter "Goodrich"), sustained an accidental injury to his low back while in the course of his employment. Miraglia filed a workers' compensation claim, which was certified as valid by Goodrich, thereby entitling Miraglia to workers' compensation benefits.
Both prior and subsequent to November 1, 1976, Miraglia received workers' compensation for total disability. Effective November 1st, Miraglia began to receive disability pension payments pursuant to a non-contributory insurance or benefit program provided by Goodrich.
A dispute arose between Miraglia and Goodrich with respect to Goodrich's interpretation and application of R.C. 4123.56. Goodrich notified Miraglia that, effective November 1, 1976, his total disability benefits in accordance with workers' compensation laws would be paid only to the extent by which such benefit payments exceed the amount of the non-contributory insurance or benefit program benefits. Miraglia then filed a motion in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, which resulted in an administrative order of May 3, 1977, requiring Goodrich to return to Miraglia all the benefits deducted as a result of Miraglia's receiving a disability pension.
Goodrich unsuccessfully exhausted all its administrative appeal remedies. Thereafter, Goodrich filed a notice of Appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to R.C. 4123.519. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, pursuant to an order of the trial court, the trial court dismissed the appeal by Goodrich and held that
Goodrich timely filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. That court, by its decision dated May 16, 1979, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Goodrich appeal.
The Court of Appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for Clark County in Green v. Stringer (1978), 58 Ohio App.2d 53, 389 N.E.2d 510, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.
Barrett & Ferguson and John R. Barrett, Akron, for appellee.
Roetzel & Andress and George A. Clark, Akron, for appellant.
In its first proposition of law, Goodrich asserts that the appellate court erred in determining that an order by the Industrial Commission, interpreting R.C. 4123.56 and mandating that an injured employee receiving the maximum amount for permanent and total disability may not have such benefits offset by the amount of compensation received under a non-occupational disability plan, is a decision as to the extent of disability and, therefore, is not appealable pursuant to R.C. 4123.519.
Goodrich, according to its interpretation of applicable laws, and specifically R.C. 4123.56, deducted the amount of the pension benefit from the amount of workers' compensation awarded.
R.C. 4123.56, in pertinent part, provides:
"If any compensation for total disability has been paid for the same period or periods for which non-occupational disability insurance or benefits is or has been paid pursuant to an insurance policy or program to which the employer has made the entire contribution or payment for providing such insurance or benefits, compensation for total disability for such period or periods shall be paid only to the extent by which such payment or payments exceeds the amount of such non-occupational insurance or benefits paid or payable."
R.C. 4123.519 explains the process of appealing a claim to a Court of Common Pleas. In pertinent part, R.C. 4123.519 provides:
"The claimant or the employer may appeal a decision of the industrial commission in any injury case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability, to the court of common pleas of the county in which the injury was inflicted or in which the contract of employment was made if the injury occurred outside the state. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
The critical issue is whether the facts in the cause sub judice indicate a question as to the extent of disability and, therefore, not appealable to the Court of Common Pleas.
It is firmly established that, once the claimant's right to participate in the fund is established, the commission has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felty v. AT & T Technologies, Inc.
...common pleas court because it does not go to the employee's right to participate in the fund. See Miraglia v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 128, 15 O.O.3d 163, 399 N.E.2d 1234. As this example demonstrates, only those decisions that finalize the allowance or disallowance of a clai......
-
Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. v. Gillespie
...participate is appealable, but (one as to) the extent of participation is not appealable." (Emphasis sic.) Miraglia v. B.F. Goodrich (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 128, 130, 399 N.E.2d 1234. In Zavatsky, we decided two separate, but legally similar, workers' compensation cases. In the first, John Za......
-
State ex rel. McGinnis v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...issue here does not involve extent of disability and is therefore appealable. We disagree. In Miraglia v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 128, 15 O.O.3d 163, 399 N.E.2d 1234, we found that mandamus was the proper remedy for a self-insured employer seeking to off-set payment of total......
-
Concord Foods, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
...instructive are State ex rel. McGinnis v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 81, 568 N.E.2d 665, and Miraglia v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 128, 15 O.O.3d 163, 399 N.E.2d 1234, where the court held that mandamus was the proper remedy by which employers could seek setoffs agains......