Legal Opinion

Gilbert v. Midland-Ross Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1981No. 80-1351PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMahoney, J.

R. C. 4123.519 permits appeals to the *269Court of Common Pleas from orders of the Industrial Commission on matters “other than a decision as to the extent of disability***.” This language is jurisdictional; if a decision concerns only the extent of disability, it is not appealable. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 46; Rummel v. Flowers (1972), 28 Ohio St. 2d 230. In the present case there is but one issue presented for our review, and that is, whether the decision of the Industrial Commission is appealable.

The phrase “extent of disability” is…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Zavatsky v. StringerOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State ex rel. Campbell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. v. GillespieOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Rummel v. FlowersOhio Supreme Court · 1972

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State ex rel. Evans v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State ex rel. Gatlin v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. McHenry v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1990

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API