State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton, 74-929
| Decision Date | 04 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-929,74-929 |
| Citation | 329 N.E.2d 104,42 Ohio St.2d 386 |
| Parties | , 71 O.O.2d 371 The STATE ex rel. GONZALES, Appellant, v. PATTON, Judge, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On November 27, 1968, appellant, Hiram Gonzales, sustained injuries in the course of and arising out of his employment with intervenor-appellee Ford Motor Company. Appellant's workmen's compensation claim was recognized by Ford, a self-insuring employer; the company has provided appellant with both medical benefits and compensation for a brief period of temporary total disability.
On August 1, 1970, appellant filed an application for permanent partial disability. The Industrial Commission subsequently determined that appellant had a ten percent permanent partial disability. Not only did Ford not contest that finding, but it admitted in its answer to appellant's prohibition complaint in the instant action that '* * * it is an established fact that relator (appellant) has a permanent partial disability of 10 percent.'
Appellant eventually filed his election, pursuant to R.C. 4123.57, to receive compensation based upon an alleged impairment of his earning capacity resulting from the November 27, 1968, injuries. In the fall of 1971, the Deputy Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation denied this claim. The denial was predicated on the finding '* * * from proof of record that the claimant's impairment in his earnings in due to conditions unrelated to his injury.' However, the Cleveland Regional Board of Review reversed, and awarded appellant temporary partial disability benefits on the basis of a ten percent impairment of earning capacity. The Industrial Commission affirmed the board's order.
In February 1973, Ford perfected an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County from the commission's affirmance of the award. The appeal was allegedly pursuant to R.C. 4123.519. The case was assigned to the personal docket of appellee Judge Patton. In March 1973, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal '* * * for the reason that this court (the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County) lacks jurisdiction because this appeal involves a question as to the extent of disability.' The motion was denied by the appellee judge.
The denial of the motion to dismiss triggered the present prohibition litigation in the Court of Appeals. The prohibition action, brought by appellant herein, was based on the same ground asserted in the motion to dismiss which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the complaint.
Appellant has brought the cause before this court pursuant to an appeal as of right. Ticktin, Baron, Kabb & Valore and Kenneth S. Kabb, Cleveland, for appellant.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Richard A. Goulder, Cleveland, for appellee Judge John T. Patton.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Thomas G. Hermann, Cleveland, for appellee Ford Motor Co.
The first sentence of R.C. 4123.519 provides, in part: 'The claimant or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ruessman v. Flanagan
...Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 73 O.O.2d 328, 329, 338 N.E.2d 522, 523; State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 386, 388, 71 O.O.2d 371, 372, 329 N.E.2d 104, 106. However, we have also recognized a corollary to these general propositions and have held that ......
-
State, ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.
...three of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Gilla, v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 338 N.E.2d 522; State, ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 386, 388, 329 N.E.2d 104; State, ex rel. Bd. of Co. Commrs., v. Court (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 354, 356, 376 N.E.2d 1343; DuBose v. C......
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt
...three of the syllabus; State ex rel. Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 338 N.E.2d 522; State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 386, 388, 329 N.E.2d 104. The corollary to that general rule is that '(w)here there is a total want of jurisdiction on the part of a ......
-
State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar
...Ohio St.2d 27, 340 N.E.2d 395; State ex rel. Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 338 N.E.2d 522; State ex rel. Gonzales v. Patton (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 386, 329 N.E.2d 104; State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 127, 304 N.E.2d 382; and State ex rel. Miller v. C......