Valentino v. Keller

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: O'NEILL; TAFT
• Citation: Valentino v. Keller, 224 N.E.2d 748, 9 Ohio St.2d 173, 38 O.O.2d 412 (Ohio 1967)
• Decision Date: 22 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 40012,40012
• Parties: , 38 O.O.2d 412 VALENTINO, Appellee, v. KELLER, Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation et al., Appellants.

Page 173

9 Ohio St.2d 173

224 N.E.2d 748, 38 O.O.2d 412

VALENTINO, Appellee, v. KELLER, Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation et al., Appellants.

No. 40012.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 22, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

Upon the motion of a claimant for reinstatement of his claim for workmen's compensation benefits, which claim has been previously allowed, the Industrial Commission has the power to determine whether ten years has elapsed since the last compensation or benefits were received by the claimant. The commission's determination of that question is a decision as to the claimant's right to participate or to continue to participate in the fund. A determination of such question adversely to the applicant is jurisdictional and entitles the claimant to appeal to the Common Pleas Court pursuant to the provisions of Sction 4123.519, Revised Code.

Ralph Valentino, appellee herein, was employed by the Sharon Steel Hoop Company, now known as the Sharon Steel Corporation on October 9, 1929, and received injuries to both his legs in the course of his employment on that day. His claim for workmen's compensation was allowed, and he was paid temporary total and permanent partial compensation and provided with benefits, including medical treatment.

On August 28, 1963, Valentino filed a motion with the Administrator of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, requesting that his claim be reinstated. The administrator denied the motion, and this denial was affirmed by the Canton Regional Board of Review. The Industrial Commission refused to permit an appeal from this order of denial by the Canton Regional Board of Review. Valentino perfected his appeal to the Common Pleas Court.

At the trial in the Common Pleas Court, following the opening statement of the attorney for Valentino, the appellant moved for a directed verdict upon the ground that the decision by the Industrial Commission was final and could not be appealed from. The Common Pleas Court sustained the motion and directed a verdict for the Sharon Steel Corporation.

The appellee appealed to the Court of Appeals, which court reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and ordered a new trial.

The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Traxler, Malkoff & Shwartz and Solomon Malkoff, Youngstown, for appellee.

Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman and Paul J. Fleming, Youngstown, for appellant Sharon Steel Corporation.

O'NEILL, Judge.

There is but a single issue of fact in dispute in this case. The Sharon Steel Corporation asserts that the last medical treatment was received by Valentino in 1951. Valentino alleges that the last medical treatment by the Sharon Steel Corporation's doctor was in 1954.

The significance of this dispute is that Section 4123.52, Revised Code, provides that the Industrial Commission has no jurisdiction to modify or change or make any findings of award in any claim which shall be made with respect to disability, compensation, dependency or benefit 'after ten years from the last payment theretofore made of compensation or benefits awarded on account of injury or death * * *.' (Emphasis added.)

If the Sharon Steel Corporation is correct in its assertion that the last medical treatment was received by Valentino in 1951, which would be more than ten years prior to the date (August 28, 1963) upon which claimant filed his application for the reinstatement of his claim, then the Industrial Commission has no jurisdiction to grant any additional benefits and there is no obligation to reinstate the claim. If, however, Valentino is correct in his allegation that the last medical treatment that he received from the corporation doctor was in 1954, then his motion to reinstate his claim was made within the ten-year statute of limitations, and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to grant additional benefits under the claim and should be required to reinstate his claim.

This is a simple issue of fact as to whether Valentino's last treatment by the...