Duffy v. Hamilton County (1994), 92 Ohio App.3d 717; dismissed 69 Ohio St.3d 1443. Discharged county employee's appeal was untimely and the state personnel board of review lacked jurisdiction where appeal was not received until eleven days after order of county board was filed with personnel board of review, even though envelope containing the appeal carried postal meter date three days earlier.

Winiarski v. Hamilton County Recorder (June 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 94APE12-1821, 1822 and 1823, unreported. 1995 WL 360235; cert denied (Nov. 15, 1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1456. The state personnel board of review's jurisdiction may rest only on an appeal from an effective notice of abolishment; it may not be based on an appeal from a notice rendered ineffective by proper rescission.

Winiarski v. Hamilton County Recorder (June 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 94APE12-1821, 1822 and 1823, unreported. 1995 WL 360235; cert denied (Nov. 15, 1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1456. An appeal from a job abolishment notice may not be filed before receipt of the notice; a premature filing is in direct contravention to R.C. 123.328 and O.A.C. 124-1-03(B).

Burton v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (Feb. 9, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1499, unreported, 1993 WL 31646. A notice of appeal required to be filed with the state personnel board of review is presumptively delivered on time where it is shown to have been mailed with sufficient time to have arrived at the agency within the time limit; the initial burden is upon appellant to meet the statutory filing deadline and, should appellant choose to rely on ordinary mail for delivery of the notice of appeal, he must accept the consequences when that manner of delivery proves inadequate.

Burton v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (Feb. 9, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1499, unreported, 1993 WL 31646. The state personnel board of review cannot prove the negative of non-receipt of a notice of appeal other than by denial, absent any evidence that it fabricated non-receipt of the notice of appeal to avoid addressing the merits of appellant's claim.

Perdue, et al. v. University of Cincinnati (Sept. 24, 1996), Hamilton Co., No. A9602584, unreported. Failure of Appellants' attorney to timely file an appeal on behalf of her clients does not extend the statutory time period for such filing.

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Feb. 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF07-5142, unreported. Where the results of a job audit indicate that appellant's job duties were not changed sufficiently to result in a reduction in position, appellant must file an appeal of the results of that job audit in order to prevent his earlier-filed appeal of his alleged improper reduction from becoming moot. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Wilkerson v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Dec. 1, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF05-3438, unreported. An employee does not need to receive written notice of a reduction where the employee has previously agreed, however reluctantly, to the reduction; the O.A.C. has a ninety-day appeal period for those non-disciplinary situations where notice is not required because the employee is already aware of the reduction.

Conn v. Warren County Auditor (Dec. 6, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF-03-1978, unreported. Where an employee does not know the specific nature of an action but is, nevertheless, aware that some adverse employment action has been taken against her, the time limit for filing her appeal with the state personnel board of review begins to run from the time she received notification of the adverse employment action.

Banner v. Ohio Veteran's Children's Home (Sept. 23, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF-04-2866, unreported. A notice of appeal required to be filed with the state personnel board of review is presumptively delivered on time where it is shown to have been mailed with sufficient time to have arrived at the agency within the time limit; the party contesting the timeliness of a notice of appeal under R.C. 119.12 has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption which arises from a timely mailing of the notice.

Banner v. Ohio Veteran's Children's Home (Sept. 23, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF-04-2866, unreported. An administrative agency may not overcome the presumption of timely delivery of a notice of appeal, which arises from its timely mailing, by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception; some other evidence, such as the envelope in which the notice of appeal was mailed to the agency bearing a postmark date should be submitted.

Mintus v. Trumbull County Child Support (Feb. 18, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-12-9035, unreported; aff'd (Apr. 25, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE10-1469, unreported, 1995 WL 250836. The notice of appeal required to be filed with a state agency in an appeal of an adjudication order pursuant to R.C. 119.12 is presumptively timely delivered when it is shown to have been mailed within sufficient time for it to have arrived at the agency before the fifteen-day time limit. View Court of Appeals Decision (Merits) | View Common Pleas Decision | View Common Pleas Decision (Timeliness Issue) | View SPBR Order

Mintus v. Trumbull County Child Support (Feb. 18, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-12-9035, unreported; aff'd (Apr. 25, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE10-1469, unreported, 1995 WL 250836. The party contesting the timeliness of an R.C. 119.12 notice of appeal has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption resulting from the timely mailing of the notice; an administrative agency may not overcome this presumption by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception of the notice of appeal. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision (Merits) | View Common Pleas Decision (Timeliness Issue) | View SPBR Order

Spindler v. State Personnel Board of Review (Nov. 26, 1991), Medina Co., No. 55594, unreported. A notice of appeal that fails to state the grounds for the appeal does not comply with R.C. 119.12 and is not properly perfected; because R.C. 119.12 does not grant any right to amend a notice of appeal, an appeal which fails to state the grounds for the appeal must be dismissed. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Stephens v. Hamilton County Dept. of Human Services (Sept. 18, 1986), PBR 86-REM-04-0470. Where appellee has no knowledge as to how long appellant will reside at a temporary address, and a removal order sent by certified mail to appellant's permanent address was duly accepted at that address on appellant's behalf, appellee has complied with the requirements of O.A.C. 124-3-02(A) and the time period for an appeal of the removal order begins to run.

Carnahan v. Mahoning County Engineer (Apr. 2, 1986) PBR 85-REM-11-1710. Regardless of the appointing authority's failure to file a R.C. 124.34 removal order with the state personnel board of review or to notify appellant of his right to appeal the action, appellant's filing of an appeal five years after his removal was not within a reasonable time period and was untimely.

Parks v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Apr. 2, 1986), PBR 85-REC-12-1771. Where an appointing authority knowingly assigns an employee job duties outside her class