Cremeans v. Contact Industries, Inc. ( 2012 )

[Cite as Cremeans v. Contact Industries, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5874.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
KATHY CREMEANS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 2012-CA-45
CONTACT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND :
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF :
WORKERS' COMPENSATION : OPINION
Defendant-Appellee
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Administrative appeal from the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
11CV979
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 10, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
ANDREW D. FUCHS MICHAEL DEWINE
580 South High Street, Ste 200 Ohio Attorney General
Columbus, OH 43215 KEVIN J. REIS
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor
For Contact Industries, Inc. Columbus, OH 43215-3130
JOHN TARKOWSKY
3 North Main Street, Ste 500
Mansfield, OH 44902
[Cite as Cremeans v. Contact Industries, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5874.]
Gwin, P.J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Kathy Cremeans appeals a judgment of the Court of
Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which dismissed her appeal taken from a
decision of appellee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denying her benefits. Her
employer is appellee Contact Industries, Inc. Appellant assigns a single error to the trial
court:
{¶2} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE A SECOND CLAIM APPLICATION.”
{¶3} The trial court outlined the procedural history of this case in its judgment
entry of May 18, 2012. The court found in her first report of injury appellant alleged she
was injured while performing repetitive work on May 3, 2010. Her alleged injuries
included a sprain of her neck, of her shoulder/arms, and of her elbow/forearm. Her first
injury report was filed on October 11, 2010, over five months after the injury. The
record also indicates appellant did not seek treatment for the injury until October 6,
2010.
{¶4} On November 4, 2010, the Bureau disallowed appellant’s claim, noting
appellant’s doctor had stated he had seen appellant in his office for the same
complaints starting “at the end of last year”. The Bureau’s decision also noted appellant
had not submitted medical evidence to support a causal relationship between the
accident and the alleged injury, in spite of the fact that medical information was
requested on October 26, 2010 and October 29, 2010. The Bureau found appellant had
not met her burden of proof.
Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-45 3
{¶5} The decision also contained a notice that the decision would become final
unless the appellant filed a written appeal within fourteen days of her receipt of the
notice. Appellant did not file a timely appeal from this decision.
{¶6} On February 1, 2011, appellant filed an administrative C-86 motion, which
brought the matter before the Ohio Industrial Commission. On April 2, a district hearing
officer found appellant’s claim should be disallowed. Appellant filed an appeal of that
order and a staff hearing officer issued a decision on May 25, 2011, finding the claim
must be disallowed. Both the district hearing officer and the staff hearing officer stated
appellant’s claim was denied on the merits of the medical and other evidence. They also
found appellant’s claim was not a second claim because appellant failed to establish
the criteria set forth in Industrial Resolution R-98-1-02 and Greene v. Conrad, 10th Dist.
No. 96APE12-1780, 1997WL476703 (August 21, 1997).
{¶7} The trial court entered summary judgment, finding as a matter of law
appellant was not entitled to participate in the Workers’ Compensation Fund.
{¶8} Generally, in reviewing an administrative body’s decision on its merits, the
Court of Common Pleas examines the record and determines whether the agency’s
decision is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or unsupported
by the preponderance of substantial, reliable and probative evidence. R.C. 2506.02.
The court presumes the decision of the administrative agency is reasonable and valid.
Community Concerns Citizens, Inc. v. Union Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 66
Ohio St. 3d 452, 456, 613 N.E. 2d 580 (1993).
{¶9} When the matter comes before us on the merits, we review the decision
of the Court of Common Pleas as to questions of law and must affirm the court’s
Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-45 4
decision unless the lower court abused its discretion in finding an administrative board’s
decision is supported by the evidence. Henley v. Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals,
90 Ohio St. 3d 142, 147, 735 N.E. 2d 433 (2000).
{¶10} Here, the trial court determined it had no jurisdiction over the matter
because the appeal was untimely and thus did not invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
This presents a question of law, and we review the matter de novo. Koos v. Central
Ohio Cellular, Inc., 94 Ohio App. 3d. 579, 641 N.E. 2d 265 (8th Dist. 1994).
{¶11} The trial court found appellant failed to appeal the initial denial of the claim
within the fourteen day period required by law. The court found it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction unless appellant’s failure to appeal can be excused pursuant to Greene,
supra. The Greene case held that the denial of a claim for failure to provide requested
information is not an adjudication of the claim on its merits. Under those circumstances,
a claimant’s subsequent filing is a second claim for the injury, rather than an appeal of
the initial denial.
{¶12} The trial court found the Industrial Commission responded to the Greene
case by enacting Resolution 98-1-02, which essentially mirrors the holding in Greene.
{¶13} The trial court found not only that appellant never filed a timely appeal
from the original decision, but also found neither party provided any evidence or
argument to the court that she ever filed a second claim application for the same
incident or accident. The court found appellant’s claims did not meet the Greene case’s
exception to the rule that a decision must be appealed within fourteen days or it
becomes final.
Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-45 5
{¶14} Appellant asserts the November 8, 2010 denial of her claim was not on
the merits and for this reason, her C-86 constitutes a valid second claim under Greene.
The Bureau argues its decision was on the merits and appellant’s failure to file an
administrative appeal renders the matter res judicata.
{¶15} The order of November 4, 2010 denying appellant’s claim states both that
appellant had failed to submit medical evidence to support a causal relationship
between the accident and the alleged injury, and also that the Bureau had requested
medical information on two occasions but appellant did not provide it.
{¶16} The Industrial Commission found the matter was determined on its merits
because the denial was based upon the evidence appellant had presented, and the fact
she did not seek treatment until five months after the date of the injury.
{¶17} In the Greene case, the injured worker presented no evidence in support
of her claimed injury. The Greene court found for this reason, the Bureau had not
reviewed the merits of her claim. We find this matter is not analogous to Greene. Here,
appellant filed medical evidence that did not support her claim the injury was related to
the alleged accident. The Bureau requested more information to give appellant the
opportunity to supplement the evidence with documentation showing she was entitled to
benefits. Appellant did not do so, and the Bureau denied her claim on its merits.
{¶18} We find the trial court was correct in determining because appellant’s
claim was originally denied on the merits the Greene exception does not apply to her
subsequent administrative C-86 motion. Her present appeal was untimely and did not
invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court.
{¶19} The assignment of error is overruled.
Richland County, Case No. 2012-CA-45 6
{¶20} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By Gwin, P.J.,
Hoffman, J., and
Edwards, J., concur
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
WSG:clw 1101
[Cite as Cremeans v. Contact Industries, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5874.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
KATHY CREMEANS :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
CONTACT INDUSTRIES, INC. :
AND ADMINISTRATOR, :
BUREAU OF WORKERS' :
COMPENSATION :
:
:
Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. 2012-CA-45
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to appellant.
_________________________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
_________________________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
_________________________________
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS