Spencer v. Freight Handlers, Inc.
131 Ohio St. 3d 316
Ohio2012Background
- Spencer sought review of an Industrial Commission order denying his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
- The notice of appeal named only Freight Handlers, Inc. as the appellee and did not name or serve the administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
- The appeal was filed in Darke County, then transferred to Miami County, and the administrator moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to join a party.
- Spencer later amended his petition to name the administrator and served the administrator, curing the defect.
- The Miami County court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
- The issue is whether naming and serving the administrator are jurisdictional requirements under R.C. 4123.512(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrator naming/serving is jurisdictional | Spencer argues the administrator is not required to be named or served to vest jurisdiction | FHI and administrator contend the requirements are jurisdictional under R.C. 4123.512(B) | Not jurisdictional; filing a compliant notice of appeal vests jurisdiction |
| Which parts of R.C. 4123.512(B) are jurisdictional | Notice contents alone suffice for jurisdiction; administrator notice is not part of the jurisdictional trigger | Both portions of subsection (B) are jurisdictional | Only filing the notice of appeal is jurisdictional; further requirements are nonjurisdictional |
| Effect of amendment curing defect | Amendment to name administrator after initial defect should cure jurisdiction | Defect in notice could render appeal void | Amendment cured the defect; jurisdiction vested upon proper amendment and service |
| Policy or statutory interpretation considerations | Legislation should be construed to ensure meritorious appeals are heard | Strict or substantial compliance governs jurisdictional requirements | Statutory interpretation favors substantial compliance; administrator need not be named in the initial notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. Young, 172 Ohio St. 317 (Ohio 1961) (jurisdictional strict compliance for notice of appeal)
- Cadle v. Gen. Motors Corp., 45 Ohio St.2d 28 (Ohio 1976) (strict-compliance rule for notice of appeal)
- Fisher v. Mayfield, 30 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 1987) (substantial-compliance standard for notice of appeal)
- Mullenk v. Whiteway Mfg. Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1984) (recognizes non-jurisdictional nature of some notice elements)
- Wells v. Chrysler Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 1984) (notice deficiencies not dispositive of jurisdiction)
- Milenkovich v. Drummond, 88 Ohio Law Abs. 103 (C.P. 1961) (historical context for administrator-a-party requirement)
- Day v. Noah’s Ark Learning Ctr., 2002-Ohio-4245 (Ohio App. Dist. 5) (appellate analysis of notice requirements (state reporting))
- Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 110 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2006) (naming/serving required for jurisdictional purposes in some statutes)
- Asbury Apts. v. Dayton Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 77 Ohio St.3d 1229 (Ohio 1997) (attorney general notice provisions as jurisdictional in some contexts)
- Olaru v. FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., 2003-Ohio-6376 (Ohio) (summary adoption of trial decision; statutory notice issues)