The employee, employer, and their respective representatives are entitled to written notice of any hearing, determination, order, award, or decision under this chapter and the administrator of workers' compensation and his representative are entitled to like notice for orders issued under divisions (C) and (D) of section 4123.511 and section 4123.512 of the Revised Code. An employee, employer, or the administrator is deemed not to have received notice until the notice is received from the industrial commission or its district or staff hearing officers, the administrator, or the bureau of workers' compensation by both the employee and his representative of record, both the employer and his representative of record, and by both the administrator and his representative.
If any person to whom a notice is mailed fails to receive the notice and the commission, upon hearing, determines that the failure was due to cause beyond the control and without the fault or neglect of such person or his representative and that such person or his representative did not have actual knowledge of the import of the information contained in the notice, such person may take the action afforded to such person within twenty-one days after the receipt of the notice of such determination of the commission. Delivery of the notice to the address of the person or his representative is prima-facie evidence of receipt of the notice by the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 542 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1989).
Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 542 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 42ד) R.C. 4123.522 provides a “savings” procedure which applies in circumstances where notice of the decision to be appealed is not received and provides in part as follows: “The employee, employer and their respective representatives shall be entitled to written notice of any…”
Afrates v. City of Lorain, 584 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 7דThe question we are asked to decide is whether the commission’s May 5, 1988 decision, finding that the city did not receive, as required by R.C. 4123.522, notice of the administrator’s April 1987 order, is appealable under the provisions of R.”
State ex rel. Nicodemus v. Indus. Comm'n, 448 N.E.2d 1360 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 11דR.C. 4123.522 provides: “The employee, employer and their respective representatives shall be entitled to written notice of any hearing, determination, order, award or decision under the provisions of Chapter 4123 of the Revised Code.”
Cantrell v. Celotex Corp., 663 N.E.2d 708 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16דAlthough not without concern for the wisdom or economy of requiring Cantrell to go back to the Industrial Commission and prove what it apparently concedes— that notice to Cantrell’s attorney was mailed to the wrong address and therefore *92 not received — we hold that compliance…”
Skiba v. Connor, 449 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 21דUpon learning that the commission had rendered its decision, appellant felt that her only recourse was to seek relief under R.C. 4123.522. That section as pertinent here, provides: “If any person to whom a notice is mailed shall fail to receive such notice and the industrial…”
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 725 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 4דR.C. 4123.522 provides: “The employee, employer, and their respective representatives are entitled to written notice of any * * * determination, order * * * or decision under this chapter and the administrator of workers’ compensation and his representative are entitled to like…”
Kaiser v. Ameritemps, Inc., 84 Ohio St. 3d 411 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 3דWhen it learned that benefits had been awarded, Ameritemps asked the bureau for leave to file an appeal under R.C. 4123.522. The Industrial Commission issued a compliance letter, granting Ameritemps the right to file an appeal within twenty-one days from receipt of the letter.”
State ex rel. Hernandez v. Indus. Comm., 2021 Ohio 3217 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7ד{¶ 1} Relator, Martin Hernandez, brought this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its September 23, 2019 order denying him relief under R.C. 4123.522. The statute provides an extension for…”
Thorton v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc., 902 N.E.2d 482 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 2ד519 and section 4123.522 of the Revised Code.” {¶ 30} Because this provision refers to “this section” rather than just division (H) of the statute, it encompasses all of R.”
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm., 2000 Ohio 328 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 11ד__________________ {¶ 1} LTV Steel Company, appellant, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio (“commission”) to vacate its decisions that deny LTV Steel’s motion for relief under R.”
Boston v. Daugherty, 465 N.E.2d 1321 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7ד519 (appeal to court of common pleas; costs; fees) 1 and R.C. 4123.522 (failure to receive notification), the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
State ex rel. Walls v. Indus. Comm'n, 736 N.E.2d 458 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 6דR.C. 4123.522 entitles the employer’s representative to notice of all orders, determinations, and decisions issued by the bureau or commission.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.