Ohio Supreme Court, 1923

Industrial Commission v. Hogle

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 26, 1923 · Day

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 843; 108 Ohio St. 363; 140 N.E. 612; 1923 Ohio LEXIS 205

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Ethen v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau (N.D. 1932)
Industrial Commission v. Nagy (Ohio 1925)
Crandall v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau (N.D. 1925)
Hale v. Keebler Company (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
State ex rel. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Szalay v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1935)
State ex rel. Cundiff v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1934)
State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1933)
Rummel v. Flowers (Ohio 1972)
State ex rel. Hatfield v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1960)
State ex rel. Coen v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1933)
Puttman v. Industrial Commission (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1931)
Industrial Comm. v. Hughes (Ohio 1925)
Dykes v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1924)
Industrial Com. v. Nagy (Ohio Ct. App. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

DAY, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Hogle was injured while working for the Mt. Vernon Bridge Co., which was a subscriber to the state insurance fund. The Industrial Commission heard his claim and ordered compensation to be disbursed *844from the state insurance fund and ordered the doctor’s hijlis paid, but made no order as to compensation to be paid Hogle and took no final action fixing the amount of compensation. Hogle appealed to the Common Pleas, where a verdict was rendered for him. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Error was prosecuted to this court. Held:

Attorneys — John G. Price, Atty. Gen, R. R. Zur-mehly, Columbus, and Paul M. Ashbaugh, Mt. Vernon, for Commission; Ewalt & Blair, Mt. Vernon, for Hogle.

By 1465-90 GC. an appeal lies only in case the final action of the Commission denies the claimant the right to participate in the fund based on one or more of the grounds enumerated. Every fact was here found in favor of claimant. There was no final action upon the statutory grounds- “Final action” giving the right to appeal means a denial of the right to participate at ajll in the state fund- Snyder v..Board, 94 OS- 342- The Common Pleas therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the action. Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained- Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.