DocketNumber： No. 4107
Citation Numbers： 53 Ohio Law. Abs. 183, 81 N.E.2d 633, 1948 Ohio App. LEXIS 887
Judges： Hornbeck, Miller, Wiseman
Filed Date： 9/16/1948
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/12/2024
OPINION
The action is to mandamus the Commission as prayed in the petition.
On or about March 6, 1944, relator was in the employ of the General Motors Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio, a self-insurer, as a carpenter within one of its plants. By reason of handling nails which had been treated with resin and turpentine, on or about July 3, 1944, relator developed a rash on his hands, which inflammation was known as dermatitis. The condition was reported to the agents of the employer and later to its physician. On November 16, 1944, relator filed an application with respondent for payment of compensation, medical services, etc., predicated on the claim that he suffered an occupational disease, namely, dermatitis. On the 10th of April, 1946, respondent allowed the claim but found that as relator had not been disabled in excess of seven days, he was entitled to no compensation. Thereafter on December 4, 1946, respondent dismissed an application of relator for determination of the percentage of permanent, partial disability, finding that he had not suffered any permanent, partial disability as a result of the occupational disease upon which he made his claim.
On March 24, 1947, relator moved the Commission that his original application, of date November 16, 1944, be considered
The petition recites at length the procedural steps taken from their inception until final order and prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondent to accept his original application as being, in legal contemplation, an application by the relator requesting compensation by reason of an accidental injury as distinguished from and wholly independent of an occupational disease claim; to accept said application and to act upon it, according to relator the right to present testimony and evidence as upon rehearing and to act upon relator’s claim.
The gist of the action is to require the respondent to consider the original application of relator which was for an award for an occupational disease as an application for an injury suffered in the course of employment. It is vital to relator’s cause that the original application be considered as for an award for an accidental injury as of the date when .filed because otherwise, §1465-72a GC would bar him because-no other application for allowance for injury suffered was filed with the respondent within two years after the injury.
Manifestly, the request of relator is unusual and in so far as we find in the record, the claim of injury is not supported by any substantial factual development whatever. The observation of the respondent in its entry of June 9, 1947, that-relator’s affliction is,
“not the result of an injury received in the course of and' arising out of his employment”
is merely corollary to its express finding theretofore made that his condition “is the result of an occupational disease”.
If it be conceded that the respondent had jurisdiction to treat the original application as one for injury, certainly it had a discretion whether or not it would do so. Nothing;
The situation developed by the record will not permit this ■Court to say that it is the manifest duty of the respondent to accord to the relator the relief which is sought in the petition. The writ will be denied.