DocketNumber: No. 24314.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 6618
Judges: SLABY, Judge.
Filed Date: 12/17/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 7} I respectfully dissent, as I would find that this is a final, appealable order.
{¶ 8} A discussion of the evolution of the law is helpful to a discussion of the issue at hand. Under an earlier version of the law, an employee could control the prosecution of the appeal by dismissing his complaint. See Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc.,
{¶ 9} Interestingly, in his concurrence in judgment only inFowee, Justice O'Donnell addressed the frustration experienced by employers in the circumstances under the prior version of the law where the employee, as claimant, could delay resolution of the matter by dismissing the complaint. Justice O'Donnell noted that "the General Assembly could correct" the situation and relieve employer frustration by amending the statute to "direct the employer in an employer appeal to file the complaint in common pleas court" while maintaining the burdens of proof and of going forward on the employee-claimant. Fowee at ¶ 29. Just over two months after the Fowee decision was released, the legislature addressed such employer frustration in another way by amending R.C.
{¶ 10} The majority in the case before this Court denigrates the proscription of the applicable version of the statute. The majority inferably recognizes an employer's ability to challenge a claimant's unilateral dismissal of the employer's appeal for the reason that worker's compensation appeals constitute special proceedings and the employer's substantial rights are implicated. The majority, however, has determined that Quality Mold has not invoked this Court's jurisdiction to consider Nixon's unlawful dismissal only because Quality Mold did not *Page 6 seek relief below in the limited ways it believes the Second and Sixth District Courts of Appeals recognized.
{¶ 11} Keller v. Johns Manville, 6th Dist. No. L-08-1315,
{¶ 12} Anderson v. Sonoco Prods. Co. (1996),
{¶ 13} I acknowledge that, ordinarily the denial of a dispositive motion is not a final, appealable order. However, workers' compensation appeals are special proceedings implicating substantial rights. BothAnderson and Keller recognized workers' compensation appeals as special proceedings. Both courts further stated that substantial rights were implicated where a party must otherwise wait to appeal. Specifically, the Anderson court asserted that an employer has a substantial right to mitigate its inability to recoup wrongfully paid benefits.
{¶ 14} Quality Mold correctly asserts that "[t]he amendment [to R.C.