Nykiel v. Northcoast Moving Ents. , 2012 Ohio 272 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Nykiel v. Northcoast Moving Ents., 2012-Ohio-272.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97009
ROBERT NYKIEL
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
NORTHCOAST MOVING ENTERPRISES, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-673066
BEFORE: Sweeney, P.J., Jones, J., and Kilbane, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 26, 2012
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Christopher J. Shaw, Esq.
1487 Belle Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David P. Thomas, Esq.
Cooper & Thomas
801 Terminal Tower
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Naveen Ramprasad, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Vincent T. Lombardo, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State Office Building, 11th Floor
615 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1899
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Northcoast Moving Enterprises, Inc. (“Northcoast”)
appeals the court’s denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings in this workers’
compensation case. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment.
{¶ 2} In April 2008, plaintiff-appellee Robert Nykiel was injured while working
for Northcoast. Nykiel filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was ultimately
allowed. Pursuant to R.C. 4123.512, Northcoast filed a notice of appeal in the common
pleas court, and on November 14, 2008, Nykiel filed his complaint. On August 5, 2009,
Nykiel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1),
which the court granted on August 24, 2009.
{¶ 3} The next docket entry in this case was on May 9, 2011, when Northcoast
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Nykiel’s failure to re-file his
complaint within the one-year saving clause pursuant to R.C. 2305.19. The motion was
unopposed; however, the court summarily denied it on June 10, 2011.
{¶ 4} Northcoast appeals and raises one assignment of error for our review.
{¶ 5} I. “The trial court erred by not granting Defendant-Appellant’s,
Northcoast Moving Enterprises, Inc., Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings when
Northcoast was the appealing party to Common Pleas Court from a decision adverse to it
by the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert Nykiel, filed his
Complaint and subsequently filed a Voluntary Dismissal, but never refiled his Complaint
within the time required by statute.”
{¶ 6} Pursuant to Civ.R.12(C), “After the pleadings are closed but within such
time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
Motions for judgment on the pleadings are “specifically for resolving questions of law,”
and the court “must construe as true all of the material allegations in the complaint [and
answer], with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving
party.” Thornton v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio App.3d 122, 2008-Ohio-1709, 890 N.E.2d
353, ¶3 (8th Dist.). We review a court’s ruling on motions for judgment on the
pleadings under a de novo standard. Id.{¶ 7} In Thorton v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 124,
2009-Ohio-360, 902 N.E.2d 482, the Ohio Supreme Court summarized the law regarding
R.C. 2305.19’s one-year saving clause as applied to workers’ compensation appeals under
R.C. 4123.512. The court stated that “‘[i]n an employer-initiated workers’
compensation appeal,”’ after an employee voluntarily dismisses a workers’ compensation
complaint under Civ.R. 41(A), “‘if the employee-claimant fails to refile within the year
allowed by the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19, the employer is entitled to judgment * * *.’”
(Quoting Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc., 108 Ohio St.3d 533, 2006-Ohio-1712, 844 N.E.2d
1193, syllabus.)
{¶ 8} This court had previously reached the same conclusion in Smith v.
Continental Airlines, Inc., 8th Dist. No. 81010, 2002-Ohio-4181, 2002 WL 1879004,
relying on Kaiser v. Ameritemps, Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 411, 704 N.E.2d 1212 (1999). In
Kaiser, the Ohio Supreme Court established that the trial court retained jurisdiction over
an employer’s notice of appeal in a workers’ compensation claim, even after an
employee’s voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A), to prevent the employee from
perpetually delaying refiling his or her complaint. Id. at 415.
{¶ 9} The instant case is procedurally similar to Smith. Nykiel failed to re-file
his dismissed complaint within the one-year prescribed in R.C. 2305.19. Given the body
of law discussed above, we must hold that the court erred in denying Northcoast’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Northcoast’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 10} Judgment reversed, and case remanded to the trial court for entry of
judgment on the pleadings in favor of Northcoast.
It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs
herein.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into
execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR