On thе motion for reinstatement, the issue was whether the motion had been filed within “ten years from the last payment theretofore made of compensation” to the claimant, as specified in Section 4123.52, Revised Code (122 Ohio Laws 268, 276). Unless it had been so filed, then, under the provisions 'of that statute, thе commission could not reinstate the claim. That issue was submitted by the trial court to the jury.
The claimant contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury by referring to the adverse rulings of the administrаtor, the Board of Review and the Industrial Commission with respect to the motion of claimant for rеinstatement of his claim.
In support of this contention, the claimant relies upon Jones v. Keller, supra (
The Court of Appeals in the instant case, although
In our opinion, it was not error for the trial court in its charge to refer to those adverse administrative rulings, although we believe that, where a trial court does refer to such rulings, it mаy on its own motion, and should, on request by the claimant (Rhoades v. Cleveland [1952],
The appeal to the Common Pleas Court involved in the instant case is provided for by Sеction 4123.519, Revised Code. That section, as in force when this appeal was instituted (and as now in force), requires the claimant to “file a petition setting forth the basis for the jurisdiction of the court over the action.” This and other provisions of that statute, as well as of Section 4123.516, Revised Code, require the allegations in the petition in the instant case with respect to the adversе rulings of the administrator, the Regional Board of Review and the Industrial Commission with respect to the claimant’s motion for reinstatement of his claim. The complained of references to those administrative rulings by the trial court in the instant case were merely summaries of those rulings as alleged in the petition.
In Section 4123.519, Revised Code, it is specified that “further pleadings” beyond that petitiоn “shall be had in accordance with the rules of civil procedure,” except as spеcified otherwise by statute. Our statutes are silent as to whether the court may send the pleadings tо the jury or tell the jury what those pleadings contain in an appeal such as this.
Thus, as stated by Skeel, J., in Indianapolis & Southeastern Trailways, Inc., v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. (1957),
“It is proper fоr a court to send the pleadings in a cause to the jury during its deliberations * *
To the same effect, see 52 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, 554, Section 70; 53 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 205, Section 286; 53 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 35, Sectiоn 173. It may be noted that the Proposed Rules of Civil Procedure, recently submitted to this court for consideration, specifically prohibit either the reading or submission of pleadings to the jury. See Rulе 8(g), XLI Ohio Bar, No. 45, p. 1404.
In view of the common practice of sending pleadings to the jury room when Section 4123.519, Revised Code, was enacted, and of its requirement that the petition contain allegations as to adverse administrative rulings that would set forth “the basis for the jurisdiction of the court ovеr the action,” we are of the opinion that the General Assembly did not intend to prevent the triаl court, in an appeal under that statute, from summarizing those allegations of the petition in its сharge to the jury.
We therefore conclude that where adverse rulings of the Administrator of the Burеau of Workmen’s Compensation, the Regional Board of Review and the Industrial Commission, with respеct to a claim for workmen’s- compensation, are required to be alleged in a pеtition upon appeal pursuant to Section 4123.519, Revised Code, in order to set forth the basis for the jurisdiction of the court over the appeal, it is not error for a trial court in its charge to
For the foregoing reasons, we are in accord with the judgment of affirmance upon which the Court of Appeals has agreed and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.