Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 5, 2006

If you do workers comp court appeals, you should be aware that a quirk in the voluntary dismissal procedure has been addressed by the Ohio legislature.  If either side is not satisfied with the result of a work comp case at the administrative levels, they can appeal to Common Pleas court.  (And unlike other administrative appeals, you get a trial de novo.)  The procedure starts with the filing of a notice of appeal to the court, followed by a complaint filed by the claimant.  After that, it's governed by the normal rules of civil procedure.

Including Rule 41, and that's where the anomaly arose.


Obviously, if the claimant had appealed and wanted to voluntarily dismiss the complaint, that didn't present anything unusual.  But what if the employer had appealed?  Back in 1998, the Supreme Court had held that the claimant could use the voluntary dismissal procedure even if it was the employer who had appealed, reasoning that the fact that the claimant was the one who had to file the complaint made him the "plaintiff" for purposes of the proceedings.

This could have led to a bizarre result:  if it was the employer's appeal, the claimant could file his complaint, then dismiss it and defeat the appeal simply by not refiling the complaint.  This loophole was closed just a few months ago in Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc., where the Supreme Court held that if the claimant did not refile the complaint within one year, refiling was barred, and the employer was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.  (This was the same position the 8th District had adopted four years earlier.)

But now even that option has been foreclosed.  In a recent amendment to RC 4123.512, the appeals statute, the legislature specified that "the claimant may not dismiss the complaint without the employer's consent if the employer is the party that filed the notice of appeal..."  The law takes effect June 30, 2006, and although it doesn't specify whether it affects pending cases, under normal rules of construction, there's little question that it will.  Of course, you can still dismiss up until the drop-dead date, and if you're the one that filed the appeal, you can dismiss after that as well.

(On edit:  a shout out to attorney Paul Friedman for tipping me off to the change in the law.  If you've got a tidbit like that, or an interesting issue in a case, drop me a line.  You too could appear in the briefcase.  Your mother will be proud.)

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture