State ex rel. Lapp Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v Indus Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 179, 2008
Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the rule regarding what information is required to perfect an administrative appeal. In the decision of State ex rel. Lapp Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. the Ohio Supreme Court reaffirmed the “substantial compliance” standard. In Lapp Roofing, an unrepresented employer filed an administrative appeal from a BWC order allowing the claim. Specifically, the injured worker filed a First Report of Injury, claiming he sustained an industrial injury. On September 24, 2002, the BWC issued an order allowing the workers’ compensation claim, awarding temporary total disability compensation and setting the injured worker’s full weekly wage (“FWW”). Two days later, the BWC issued a second order that vacated the first order, but still allowed the claim for the same conditions and awarded temporary total disability compensation for the same period. The only difference between the two orders was that the second order changed the FWW and also set a figure for the average weekly wage.
On October 8, 2002, the employer, who at the time was not represented by counsel, wrote to the Bureau “objecting to the BWC Tentative Order dated September 24, 2002” and requested a hearing on the merits of the claim. The matter was heard by a District Hearing Officer of the Industrial Commission who ultimately denied the employer’s appeal because “The employer did not appeal the 9/26/02 order, therefore, there was no issue to be heard.” The Industrial Commission based the decision on the fact that, according to the employer’s October 8th letter, the employer appealed the vacated September 24th BWC order, not the September 26th BWC order. The employer filed a Complaint in Mandamus in the Court of Appeals, alleging the Commission had abused its discretion in denying the employer’s appeal. Despite the fact that the October 8th letter had mistakenly referenced the September 24th BWC order instead of the September 26th BWC order, the employer argued that it had “substantially complied” with the notice requirements as set forth in R.C. 4123.511 (F). The Court of Appeals agreed. The injured worker appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, and explained that there are two principles which must be balanced in litigation. The first principle stems from the “important function” served by rules of procedure in maintaining the “prompt, orderly and effective administration of justice.” The second principle that must be balanced is the “fundamental tenet of judicial review in Ohio that courts should decide cases on their merits.” The Court explained that this principle is “ultimately best served by an attitude of judicial tolerance toward minor errors made in good faith, which posed no danger of prejudice to the opposing party or to the Courts essential functions.”
The rule at issue is R.C. 4123.511 (F), which governs Administrative Appeals. Specifically, 4123.511 (F) requires that every notice of appeal must clearly state four items. Those four items include both the claimant and the employer names, the claim number, the date of the decision appealed from, and the fact that the appellant appeals from the decision. The Supreme Court has held that absolute compliance with R.C. 4123.511 (F) is not required. However, in order for an administrative appeal to be valid, the appealing party must have at least “substantially complied” with the statute. The Court explained that “substantial compliance” occurs when a timely filed notice of appeal includes “sufficient information, in intelligible form, to place on notice all parties to a proceeding that an appeal has been filed from an identifiable final order which has determined the parties’ substantive rights and liabilities.”
In this case, the claimant argued that by referencing the vacated September 24th order in its letter/appeal dated October 8th; the employer had actually appealed a vacated BWC order. The claimant argued that since the appeal was filed from a vacated order the employer had not appealed the appropriate BWC order. The Supreme Court disagreed, and stated that it would be “illogical” to interpret Lapp Roofing’s October 8th appeal as an appeal from a vacated BWC Order. The Court also found it compelling that the contents of the vacated September 24th BWC order were incorporated fully into the second BWC order issued on September 26th. The Court explained that reference to either the September 24th or the September 26th BWC order would have put the injured worker on sufficient notice that the employer was contesting the claim’s allowance. The fact that the employer’s October 8th appeal referenced the vacated September 24th BWC order instead of the September 26th BWC order, could not have “misled, surprised, or prejudiced the claimant.”
This case is significant because the Supreme Court chose to reaffirm the position that, when filing an appeal from an administrative order, absolute compliance with R.C. 4123.511 (F) is not required. Although absolute compliance will guarantee the validity of the appeal, in the event of human or clerical error, the Supreme Court held that “substantial compliance” is sufficient to perfect the appeal. In the Court’s opinion, “substantial compliance” is the best way to balance the competing interests between the claimant and the employer, while promoting “an attitude of judicial tolerance toward minor errors made in good faith, and pose no danger of prejudice to the opposing party.”
For a copy of this opinion, or to discuss the impact of this decision, please feel free to contact a member of our Workers’ Compensation Practice Group.
