From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 22, 1974
38 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1974)

Opinion

No. 73-1013

Decided May 22, 1974.

Unemployment compensation — Appeal — From administrator to Board of Review — Time for filing — Decision on reconsideration — Evidence of mailing date lacking — Effect.

CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Appellee's claim for unemployment compensation was disallowed by the Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Services, and the decision was affirmed upon reconsideration.

An application by appellee to institute an appeal to the Board of Review was disallowed because the appeal from the administrator's decision on reconsideration was not timely filed, as required by R.C. 4141.28(H).

Upon appeal, the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County held that "the appeal to the board was not timely," and affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.

The Court of Appeals reversed, and, finding its judgment to be in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County in Knoll v. Dudley (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 339, certified the cause to this court for review and final determination.

Messrs. Thompson, Swope, Burns Biswas and Mr. Richard F. Swope, for appellee.

Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, Mr. James E. Uprichard, Jr., and Mr. John F. Livorno, for appellants.


Appellants' sole contention is that the time prescribed in R.C. 4141.28 for appealing the decision of the administrator on reconsideration is "determined from the date such decision is mailed," and that appellee's appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed more than ten days after the decision on reconsideration was "mailed" to appellee.

The burden of showing when the rehearing decision of the administrator was mailed was on the public agency. Here, no proof was established to show when that decision was actually deposited in the mail.

This court reaffirms its position in King v. Garnes (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 187, and, on authority of that case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O'NEILL, C.J., CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.

HERBERT, J., concurs in the judgment.


Summaries of

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 22, 1974
38 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1974)
Case details for

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WYCUFF, APPELLEE, v. FOTOMAT CORP. ET AL., APPELLANTS

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 22, 1974

Citations

38 Ohio St. 2d 196 (Ohio 1974)
311 N.E.2d 657

Citing Cases

Ridley v. Bureau

The record before the Court of Appeals indicates no probative showing of the date of the mailing of the order…

Proctor v. Giles

Appellant board contends that its decision was mailed to appellee on August 1, 1977, and that because the…