Wells v. Chrysler Corp., 83-1922

• Decision Date: 19 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1922,83-1922
• Parties: , 15 O.B.R. 18 WELLS, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellee, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 21

15 Ohio St.3d 21

472 N.E.2d 331, 15 O.B.R. 18

WELLS, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellee, et al.

No. 83-1922.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 19, 1984.

Appellant, William T. Wells, an employee of appellee, Chrysler Corporation, filed an application for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that he sustained injuries as the result of an accident in the course and scope of his employment. Both the deputy administrator and the Toledo Regional Board of Review disallowed the claim.

Appellant then filed the following notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 4123.519 with the court of common pleas on September 4, 1981:

                                "IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, OHIO
                "WILLIAM T. WELLS                         CASE NO. 81-CIV-262
                1134 Vance Street
                Toledo, OH 43607
                  "Plaintiff-Appellant
                "vs.                                      NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                                          ----------------
                "CHRYSLER CORPORATION
                8000 Chrysler Drive
                Perrysburg, OH 43551
                "and                                      RICHARD A MEYER, JR
                                                          Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
                "RAY CONNORS,                             421 North Huron Street
                ADMINISTRATOR                             Toledo, Ohio 43604
                BUREAU OF WORKERS'                        Telephone No.: 248-2479
                State Office Building
                246 North High Street
                Columbus, OH 43215
                  "Defendant-Appellees
                  "*****************************************************************
                "William T. Wells, as Plaintiff and claimant, gives notice of his appeal from a
                decision entered on June 26, 1981 in claim number 627981-22, by Staff Hearing
                Officers Leach and Repa in an appeal from the Toledo Regional Board of Review
                                                          --------------------------------
                                                          "RICHARD A MEYER, JR
                                                          Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant"
                

Appellee responded with a motion to dismiss on the basis the notice of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for two reasons: the notice did not contain the name of the appellee-employer in its text and appellee was never designated as the employer. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the appellate court held in a split decision that "[i]n light of the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 4123.519, we conclude that the common pleas court did not err in dismissing the notice of appeal since appellant failed to designate the claimant and the employer as such. [Citations omitted.]"

In dissent, Judge Alice Robie Resnick found substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the majority's dismissal on a highly technical ground manifestly unjust.

This cause is now before the court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Richard A. Meyer, Jr., Toledo, for appellant.

Fuller & Henry and Richard S. Baker, Toledo, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue presented is whether a notice of appeal of a workers' compensation claim pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, which did not designate the employer as such and which named the employer in the caption but not in the body of the appeal, is sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the court of common pleas. For the reasons that follow, this court reverses the decision of the court of appeals and finds that this notice of appeal was sufficient to vest jurisdiction and thereby holds that the grant of the motion to dismiss was improper.

R.C. 4123.519 sets forth five requirements for the notice of appeal, the only act required to perfect the appeal and vest jurisdiction in the court: a "[n]otice of appeal shall state the names of the claimant and the employer, the number of the claim, the date of the decision appealed from, and the fact the appellant appeals therefrom."

This court had held that these statutory provisions are jurisdictional and strict compliance therewith is mandatory. Starr v. Young (1961), 172 Ohio St. 317, 318, 175 N.E.2d 514 ; Cadle v. General Motors Corp. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 28, 340 N.E.2d 403 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Rockwell Internatl., v. Ford (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 234, 400 N.E.2d 884 . Just recently, however, in Mullins v. Whiteway Mfg. Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 18, 471 N.E.2d 1383, this court held as follows:

" * * * It is the belief of this court, however, that such an inflexible standard as was set forth in Rockwell and Cadle is not appropriate in all circumstances. Rather, we emphasize now that, as stated above, certain mitigating factors are to be considered when examining the sufficiency of a notice of appeal. These factors include whether appellant has substantially complied with the statutory appeal provisions and whether the purpose of the unsatisfied provision is sufficiently important to require compliance for jurisdictional purposes. This flexibility comports with R.C. 4123.95 * * * " which requires liberal construction of workers' compensation statutes in favor of employees.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that appellant's notice of appeal fulfilled four of the five jurisdictional requirements: (1) the name of the claimant was stated as William T. Wells; (2) the number of the claim was listed as 627981-22; (3) the date of the decision appealed from was given as June 26, 1981; and (4) it was specified that the appeal was being taken from the June...