State ex rel. Prayner v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39127,39127 |
| Citation | 2 Ohio St.2d 120,206 N.E.2d 911 |
| Parties | , 31 O.O.2d 192 The STATE ex rel. PRAYNER, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The relator, Prayner, an employee of a self-insuring employer, filed a claim for workmen's compensation which was allowed by the Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation. The employer appealed from the decision to the Cleveland Regional Board of Review which affirmed the decision of the administrator. The employer then appealed from the decision of the regional board to the Industrial Commission.
The commission refused the appeal but, upon application for reconsideration, vacated its former order refusing an appeal and ordered the claim set for hearing. A hearing was had and continued to a later stipulated date.
Prior to the date set for hearing, relator instituted in the Court of Appeals the present action in mandamus seeking a writ requiring the Industrial Commission to vacate its order by which it vacated its former order refusing the employer's appeal and to reinstate in full force and effect its former order refusing the appeal of the employer from the order of the regional board, contending that the commission was without authority to vacate its order made in favor of the employee.
The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Alan Meltzer, Cleveland, for appellant.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen. and Robert M. Duncan, Columbus, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Russell E. Leasure and Robert G. Stinchcomb, Cleveland, for appellee employer.
The Industrial Commission has control over its orders until the actual institution of an appeal therefrom or until the expiration of the time for such an appeal. See Diltz v. Crouch, Dir. of Liquor Control, 173 Ohio St. 367, 182 N.E.2d 315.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C. J., and ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, 'O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER, and BROWN, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div.
...of Tax Appeals); Diltz v. Crouch (1962), 173 Ohio St. 367, 182 N.E.2d 315 (Board of Liquor Control); State, ex rel. Prayner, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 120, 206 N.E.2d 911 , and Todd v. General Motors (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 18, 417 N.E.2d 1017 (Industrial Commission); State, ex rel......
-
State ex rel. Gatlin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 84-961
... ... Regardless of the existence of a legislatively prescribed court appeal, the Industrial Commission has inherent power to reconsider its order for a reasonable period [480 N.E.2d 488] of ... 4123.519]." State, ex rel. Prayner, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 120, 121, 206 N.E.2d 911 [31 O.O.2d 192]. See, also, Todd ... ...
-
State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
...regardless of the existence of any of the five criteria set forth above. 2019-Ohio-2579 at ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Prayner v. Indus. Comm. , 2 Ohio St.2d 120, 206 N.E.2d 911 (1965) ; Todd v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 65 Ohio St.2d 18, 417 N.E.2d 1017 (1981) ; State ex rel. Gatlin v. Yellow Frei......
-
State ex rel. B & C Machine Co. v. Indus. Comm.
...of time in which to initiate a court appeal, or until the actual institution of an appeal. State ex rel. Prayner v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 120, 31 O.O.2d 192, 206 N.E.2d 911. This rule applies even where the court to which appeal is taken has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. S......