Fowler v. Summa Health Systems, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2004)
Fowler v. Summa Health Systems, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2004)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} In 2002, Appellant was laid off from other employment. As a result, she sought and was deemed eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. However, she did not begin receiving payments because the benefits were first being applied to the amount she was previously overpaid. Appellant then sought to appeal the overpayment determination through ODJFS, but she was informed that the time to appeal that determination was long over. Appellant appealed that determination through the administrative process to the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. On December 19, 2002, the Commission issued its final determination. On January 22, 2003, Appellant filed an appeal of that decision in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 4} On February 20, 2003, Appellee Summa moved to dismiss Appellant's complaint, alleging that it was not filed in a timely manner. On March 31, 2004, the trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss. Appellant timely appealed, raising one assignment of error. Appellant's assignment of error contains factual statements which have been omitted to clarify her proposition.
{¶ 5} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant avers that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 6} An appellate court reviews a trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) de novo. Thomasv. O'Connor (Mar. 22, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19538. Initially, this Court notes that R.C.
"Any interested party, within thirty days after written notice of the final decision of the unemployment compensation review commission was sent to all interested parties, may appeal the decision of the commission to the court of common pleas."
Additionally, "[w]henever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period." Civ.R. 6(E). However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that Civ.R. 6(E) is not applicable to extend the thirty-day time limitation for filing a notice of appeal from the determination of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. Proctor v. Giles (1980),
{¶ 7} Therefore, Appellant faced a deadline of January 18, 2003 for filing her notice of appeal to the trial court. However, January 18, 2003 was a Saturday. As such, Appellant's time for filing her notice of appeal would be extended to Monday, January 20, 2003 through R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
Carr, P.J., Whitmore, J., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jan D. Fowler v. Summa Health Systems
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Unpublished