210 N.E.2d 724 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1965
This is an action in mandamus originating in this court.
Both parties have made a motion for summary judgment, asking this court to determine whether Section
In the present action the parties are in agreement that at the time of injury (October 18, 1961), Section
"* * * No award shall be made under this division based upon a percentage of disability which, when taken with all other percentages of permanent disability, exceeds one hundred per cent. * * *"
Previously, effective November 2, 1959 (128 Ohio Laws 743, 757, 762), the Legislature had amended Section
"In connection with the procedural and remedial rights of employees, all claims which have accrued prior to the effective date of this act, whether or not an application for claim has been filed, or whether or not jurisdiction has been established or whether or not an application for an award under divisions (A), (B), (C), or (D) of Section
The parties agree also that on December 11, 1963, the Industrial Commission made a determination that the relator had a 35% permanent partial disability which prior to the amendment of Section
The relator contends that there was no limiting provision in the Code section prior to October 1, 1963. Since the amount of compensation payable to an injured employee was involved, a substantive right of the relator was affected, and the amendment can apply only to claims in which the injury was received after that date. *430
The Industrial Commission contends that the statute merely sets forth the procedure for the recovery of compensation and the extent to which relator may participate in the Workmen's Compensation Fund on account of his injury; that the section as amended October 1, 1963, provides only a limitation on the extent of the recovery, affecting only remedial or procedural rights, and applies to all claims whether filed before or after that date. They rely on an Attorney General Opinion No. 108, dated October 17, 1963.
We believe that the maximum amount of compensation to which a claimant is entitled is a substantive right and is governed by the statutory law in effect on the date of injury. SeeIndustrial Commission v. Kamrath,
Even assuming that the limitations on the amount of compensation were procedural, it would appear that Section
The motion for summary judgment filed by the relator will be granted, and judgment entered ordering the Industrial Commission to pay the compensation for permanent partial disability under the law in effect at the time the relator received the injury for which his claim was filed.
Writ allowed.
BRYANT, P. J., and TROOP, J., concur.
*1