The Tenth District Court of Appeals reverses a decision that had barred a Columbus-area physician from participating in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation's Health Partnership Program.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals reverses a decision that had barred a Columbus-area physician from participating in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation's Health Partnership Program.

In a unanimous decision authored by Judge William A. Klatt, the Tenth District Court of Appeals this month reversed a decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that had barred a Columbus-area physician from participating in the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Health Partnership Program.

Citing a line of prior cases, the Tenth District found that a Rule of Civil Procedure the trial court had relied on in its decision does not apply to administrative appeals

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) sent a letter to appellant, Brian Frederic Griffin, M.D., dated April 30, 2010 informing Griffin that it intended to revoke his certification as a provider in the Health Partnership Program because he pleaded guilty to two criminal offenses in 1993.

Griffin appealed the order on August 19, 2011, and filed a motion pursuant to this provision on September 27, 2011. In the motion, he represented that a certified record from the BWC was due on September 19, 2011. However, the docket maintained by the Franklin County Clerk of Courts did not contain any entries showing the BWC had submitted either the certified record or a motion to extend the time to file the certified record as required. Griffin requested the trial court enter judgment in his favor because the BWC had missed the filing deadline.

On October 26, 2011 the trial court granted Griffin’s motion and ordered the BWC to reinstate Griffin as a certified provider on the Health Partnership Program. The same day the BWC filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Civ.R. 60(B) provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding” in cases of mistake, error and other exigent circumstances.  The BWC represented it had certified the record and filed it with the clerk on September 20, 2011.  Apparently “an error in the clerk’s office resulted in no record of that filing appearing on the case docket.”

The BWC asked the trial court vacate its October 26 judgment on the basis of “mistake and excusable neglect” and asked the court to retroactively extend the deadline for filing the certified record by one day to compensate for the BWC’s failure to submit the certified record on the September 19 due date.  The trial court granted the BWC’s motion in its entirety on December 1, 2011. Griffin appealed the December 1 judgment. “The court of common pleas erred in granting the BWC’s Motion for Relief form Judgment because Civ. R. 60(B) does not apply to administrative appeals,” he wrote.

The BWC cited three cases for the proposition that a motion for Civ. R. 60(B) relief is a “proper” method for challenging a final judgment in an R.C. 119.12 appeal. However, Judge Klatt said, “In the cases the BWC cites, the parties did not argue, and the courts did not consider, the issue before this court. These cases, therefore, neither control nor influence the outcome of this appeal. Instead, we follow the prior precedent of this court, which we have explicitly held that Civ. R. 60(B) does not apply to administrative appeals.”

Judges Judith L.  French and John A. Connor concurred in the August 14 opinion. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Griffin v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 2012-Ohio-3655
Opinion: http://sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2012/2012-ohio-3655.pdf
Civil Appeal From: Franklin County Common Pleas Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 14, 2012

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.