State ex rel. De Boe v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 24 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 33624,33624
• Parties: , 53 O.O. 5 STATE ex rel. DE BOE v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 67

161 Ohio St. 67

117 N.E.2d 925, 53 O.O. 5

STATE ex rel. DE BOE v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

No. 33624.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 24, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where by statutory authority an administrative agency such as the Industrial Commission promulgates rules and regulations governing its activities and procedure, such rules are valid and enforceable unless they are unreasonable or in conflict with statutory enactments covering the same subject matter.

2. A writ of mandamus will not issue which requires the Industrial Commission to enter an order granting a claimant additional compensation because of his employer's violation of a specific safety requirement adopted by the commission, where it appears from the record that the claimant has not complied with valid rules of the commission relating to the time within which a claim for additional compensation based on the violation of a specific safety requirement must be presented.

Relator, the appellant herein, commenced an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin county, asking for a writ requiring the Industrial Commission of Ohio to enter an order granting him additional compensation because of his employer's violation of a specific safety requirement adopted by the commission.

The relief sought was denied and final judgment entered for the commission.

Relator is now in this court on his appeal as of right, and the pleadings, the file of the commission and agreed statement of facts comprise the record.

Gilbert Weil and Roger Zucker, Cleveland, for appellant.

C. William O'Neill, Atty. Gen., Chalmers P. Wylie, James F. DeLeone and Paul Tague, Jr., Columbus, for appellee.

ZIMMERMAN, Judge.

It appears that relator, a carpenter, while working for a contributor to the State Insurance Fund, on August 25, 1948, fell from a scaffold and was injured. His application for compensation was allowed and compensation and medical expenses were paid. Thereafter, on July 24, 1950, relator filed with the commission an application for an additional award on the ground that his employer in erecting and maintaining the scaffold had violated a designated section of the specific safety requirements adopted by the commission relating to building and construction work. An investigation was conducted on such application and the file was then forwarded to the legal department for review. Upon such review a finding was recommended that 'from the proof of record * * * claimant's injury was not caused by employer's failure to comply with any specific safety requirement.' The commission then heard relator's application and denied it on June 18, 1951. A copy of the order of denial was forthwith mailed to relator.

On October 15, 1951, nearly four months later, relator filed a motion asking for reconsideration of the order of June 18, 1951, and for the first time claimed a violation by his employer of another and different safety requirement. Such motion was denied 'for the reason that the same was not filed within the 30-day period prescribed by the commission's rules.'

Relator persisted and filed a motion for rehearing, which was likewise denied.

The commission, as did the Court of Appeals, takes the position that since the application for an additional award filed July 24, 1950, was based on the...