holding that the savings statute permits the refiling of a workers' compensation appeal in the common pleas court
How later courts described this case
- holding that the savings statute permits the refiling of a workers' compensation appeal in the common pleas court
- equating the word "action" with "notice of appeal" in discussing whether a notice of appeal was timely filed under R.C. 4123.512 and thus the action timely commenced for purposes of application of the savings statute
- trial court’s dismissal without prejudice of claimant’s complaint did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over the appeal and claimant could refile complaint within one year under the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19
- “Instead, it is clear that R.C. 2305.19 has no application unless an action is commenced and is then dismissed without prejudice after the applicable statute of limitations has run.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring. I briefly concur to draw the attention of the bench and the bar to the recent trend of cases emanating from this court which make it clear that when appropriate this court will construe the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and other rules to insure that controversies are decided on their merits rather than on overly technical applications of the rules which would lead to a dismissal. 4 We will not hesitate to apply a clear jurisdictional mandate; however, a reasonable interpretation of the Revised Code must be applied to situations such as the one at bar. Generally speaking, a trial court should not apply the sanction of dismissal absent defiance of the rules by one of the parties or contempt of the judicial process by counsel.
C. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.
See Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 99 ; In re Estate of Reeck (1986), 21 Ohio St. 3d 126 ; State v. Herzing (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 337, 339 ; Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 220, 222 ; DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 189, 192 [ 23 O.O.3d 210 ]; Cobb v. Cobb (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 124, 126 [ 16 O.O.3d 145 ].