COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60339 SLAVKA VUKOVIC : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION SPACE CARE, INC., et al : : Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MARCH 26, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 182,515 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: CLEMENT KOLLIN Attorney at Law 4053 East 71 Street Cleveland, Ohio 44105 For defendant-appellee SPACE CARE, INC. Space Care, Inc.: 1100 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellees ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, JR. Administrator and Ohio Attorney General Industrial Comm.: FRED J. POMPEANI, Assistant State Office Building 12th Floor 615 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1899 - 1 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: Plaintiff-appellee, Slavka Vukovic, appeals from the judg- ment of the common pleas court which dismissed her appeal from the decision of the Regional Board of Review, the Industrial Commission having refused to hear said appeal, which disallowed her workers' compensation claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Appellant raises the following sole assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN THAT ITS DECISION WAS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND AN ABUSE OF DIS- CRETION. Appellant argues her failure to file a petition setting forth a cause of action to participate in the workers' compensa- tion fund was the result of excusable neglect. She states her counsel was under the impression that the petition need not be filed until service was perfected on all defendants and, in any event, all defendants were fully aware of all the facts which would be stated in the petition. Therefore, appellant argues the trial court's decision dismissing her appeal was an abuse of discretion. This argument lacks merit. - 2 - R.C. 4123.519 provides, in pertinent part: The claimant shall, within thirty days after the filing of the notice of appeal, file a petition containing a statement of facts in ordinary and concise language showing a cause of action to participate or to continue to participate in the fund and setting forth the basis for the jurisdiction of the court over the action. The purpose of the petition (referred to as a "complaint" since the adoption of the Civil Rules) is to give orderliness to the appellate proceeding. Zuljevic v. Midland-Ross (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 116, 118. Further pleadings are then made in accordance with the Civil Rules. Id.; R.C. 4123.519. The power to dismiss for lack of prosecution, pursuant to Civ. R. 41(B)(1), is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Appellate review of such dismissal is therefore confined to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discre- tion. Sgro v. McDonald's Restaurants (1984), 21 Ohio App. 3d 41, paragraph one of the syllabus. Discretion is abused when a deci- sion is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, or when no reason- able man would take the view adopted by the trial court. Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. In the present case, appellant duly filed her notice of appeal but, due to a mistaken belief that service of process must be complete before the petition need be filed, failed to file a petition within thirty days. Moreover, after the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation filed its motion to dis- miss for lack of prosecution, appellant failed to seek leave to - 3 - file her petition. Instead, appellant filed a brief in opposi- tion wherein she set forth the facts which would have been stated in a petition. "The law does not, however, permit a claimant to disregard with impunity his statutory obligation to timely prosecute his R.C. 4123.519 claim. Were this court to hold that a claimant may file an untimely complaint in a R.C. 4123.519 appeal without first obtaining leave of court, the 30-day statutory time limit would be rendered meaningless." Zuljevic, supra, at 118. Thus, due to appellant's disregard of R.C. 4123.519 and the Civil Rule- s, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant's appeal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is over- ruled. Judgment affirmed. - 4 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this ap- peal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .