THE COURT OF APPEALS 
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 
GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO 
GEAUGA WELDING & PIPELINE CO., INC., : O P I N I O N 
Appellee, : 
CASE NO. 2005-G-2636 
- vs - : 
VINCENT A. GERMANO, : 
Defendant, : 
ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF : 
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, 
: 
Appellant. 

Administrative Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 04 A 000877. 
Judgment: Reversed and judgment entered for Appellant. 

Richard J. Perez, Interstate Square Building I, 4230 State Route 306, #240, 
Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Appellee). 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, State Office Tower, 17th Floor, 30 East Broad Street, 
Columbus, OH 43215 and Betsey N. Friedman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, 
State Office Building, 11th Floor, 615 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113 
(For Appellant). 
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Director, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, appeals 
from the judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the 
decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“Review 
Commission”), dismissing Geauga Welding & Pipeline Co.’s (“Geauga Welding”) appeal 
of the allowance of benefits to Vincent A. Germano (“Germano”). The Review 
Commission had determined Geauga Welding’s administrative appeal was untimely and 
thus, the Review Commission lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The trial court 
found the Review Commission’s decision was unlawful, unreasonable, and against the 
manifest weight of the evidence. We reverse. 

{¶2} Germano applied for unemployment benefits alleging he was unemployed 
from his former employer, Geauga Welding, due to a lack of work. Subsequently, 
Geauga Welding faxed information to appellant contesting Germano’s application and 
stating Germano was unemployed because he had been incarcerated. Apparently, 
appellant never received, or misfiled, this fax. In any event, this information was not 
considered and on March 4, 2004, appellant made an initial determination and allowed 
benefits. Geauga Welding received this determination the week of March 8, 2004. On 
or about March 31, 2004, Geauga Welding learned appellant had not considered the 
information Geauga Welding provided regarding Germano’s incarceration; therefore, on 
March 31, 2004, Geauga Welding filed an appeal seeking review of appellant’s 
determination allowing benefits. The Review Commission found Geauga Welding’s 
appeal was untimely filed and dismissed it. 

{¶3} Geauga Welding filed an appeal in the Geauga County Court of Common 
Pleas. The trial court found the Review Commission’s decision was unlawful, 
unreasonable, and against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant filed a timely 
appeal from the trial court’s judgment raising one assignment of error: 

{¶4} “The lower court erred in remanding this case to the Ohio Department of 
Job and Family Services (ODJFS) for a decision on the merits as competent, credible 
evidence establishes that appellee’s appeal of ODJFS’s initial determination allowing 
unemployment compensation was untimely and thus was properly dismissed.”1 

{¶5} An appellate court applies the same standard as the common pleas court 
when considering the Review Commission’s decision. Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. 
Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 696, i.e., we may reverse the 
decision only if it is unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the 
evidence. Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶6} R.C. 4141.281(A) provides, “Any party notified of a determination of 
benefit rights or a claim for benefits determination may appeal within twenty-one 
calendar days after the written determination was sent to the party or within an 
extended period as provided under division (D)(9) of this section.” Here, the 
determination allowing benefits was made March 4, 2004. Thus, Geauga Welding had 
until March 25, 2004 to perfect its appeal. 

{¶7} Geauga Welding does not dispute that its appeal was filed after this date. 
In the trial court, Geauga Welding essentially argued the requirements of R.C. 
4141.281(A) should not apply because it wrongly assumed appellant had considered 
the information it provided contesting Germano’s application and when it learned 
appellant had not done so, it immediately filed its appeal. 

{¶8} Geauga Welding’s president, Robert Leach (“Leach”), testified before the 
Review Commission that, upon receiving appellant’s initial determination allowing 
benefits, he simply assumed there was no point in filing an appeal because he assumed 
appellant had considered the information Geauga Welding had supplied regarding the 
true reason for Germano’s unemployment and thus, any appeal would be futile. When 
Leach learned otherwise, he immediately filed an appeal. 

{¶9} “[W]here a statute confers a right of appeal, such appeal may be perfected 
only by compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements.” State ex rel. Kent State 
Univ. v. State Personnel Bd. of Review (June 21, 1990), 10th Dist. No. 90AP-525, 1990 
Ohio App. LEXIS 2561, 5, citing Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation (1949), 
151 Ohio St. 123, paragraph one of the syllabus. When a statute requires that an 
administrative appeal be filed within a specified period, compliance with that 
requirement is a necessary predicate to invoking the administrative agency’s appellate 
jurisdiction. Id., citing McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279. 

{¶10} Under R.C. 4141.281(A), Geauga Welding had until March 25, 2004 to 
perfect its appeal. None of the exceptions set forth in R.C. 4141.281(D)(9) apply in the 
instant case. Therefore, the Review Commission properly found it did not have 
jurisdiction to consider Geauga Welding’s appeal and consequently, the Review 
Commission’s decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, and against the manifest 
weight of the evidence. The trial court erred in so finding. See, e.g., Clemons v. Ohio 
State Dept. of Job and Family Serv., 10th Dist. No. 03AP-976, 2004-Ohio-6251, ¶14 
(stating, “Therefore, we conclude that [claimant’s] appeal from the initial determination 
was properly dismissed because the appeal was not timely filed and the administrative 
agency was without jurisdiction to entertain his appeal.”) For the foregoing reasons the 
judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and judgment is 
entered for appellant. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., 
COLLEEN M. O’TOOLE, J., 
concur.