 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woodward v. Ohio Dep't of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities3/31/2005
{ } Plaintiff-appellant, Phyllis E. Woodward, appeals from the decision and judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss filed by appellee, Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{ } Appellant was employed by appellee as a volunteer coordinator and assigned to Apple Creek Developmental Center. On January 11, 2002, appellant was notified that her position with appellee was being abolished. On January 25, 2002, appellant filed an appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR"). On May 17, 2002, SPBR dismissed the appeal, finding it to be untimely filed.
{ } Appellant appealed from the order of dismissal by SPBR to the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas on May 31, 2002. On November 22, 2002, that court reversed SPBR's order and remanded the matter for a full hearing on the abolishment of appellant's position. On September 17, 2003, the Ninth District Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas and held that the lower court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction and held that pursuant to R.C. 119.12, an appeal from an order issued by SPBR could be filed only in Franklin County. Woodward v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, Apple Creek Developmental Ctr., Wayne App. No. 023CA0070, 2003-Ohio-4903.
{ } On October 10, 2003, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the May 17, 2002 SPBR order in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss. The court applied R.C. 119.12, which provides:
Any party desiring to appeal shall file a notice of appeal with the agency setting forth the order appealed from and the grounds of his appeal.
A copy of such notice of appeal shall also be filed by appellant with the court. Unless otherwise provided by law relating to a particular agency, such notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the agency's order as provided in this section. (Emphasis added.)
{ } Citing Niebert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 702 N.E.2d 70, the trial court held that failure to file the instant appeal from the order of SPBR within the 15 days prescribed by R.C. 119.12 constituted a jurisdictional defect requiring a dismissal of the appeal. The trial court further addressed appellant's argument that the saving statute in R.C. 2305.19 should be applied and found such argument to be without merit.
{ } Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following two assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court committed prejudicial error in holding that the time limit for an appeal of a decision of the State Personnel Board of Review to the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County contained in Revised Code Section 119.12 is jurisdictional in nature and precludes an otherwise properly-filed appeal.
II. The trial court committed prejudicial error in holding that Revised Code Section 2305.19 is not applicable to an appeal of a decision of the State Personnel Board of Review.
{ } In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the 15-day time limit for an appeal to be filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas from a decision rendered by SPBR is not jurisdictional in nature. Rather, appellant argues that the requirement is simply a venue provision. This assertion by appellant is inconsistent with the we
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|