COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                         COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                             NO. 68043
                                   :    ACCELERATED DOCKET
JOSEPH GOODWIN                     :
                                   :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellant      :
                                   :            and
     -vs-                          :
                                   :          OPINION
                                   :
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF WORKERS'  :        PER CURIAM
COMPENSATION, ET AL.               :
                                   :
          Defendants-Appellees     :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                       JUNE 1, 1995        
OF DECISION:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from 
                                   Common Pleas Court
                                   Case No. 263254
JUDGMENT:                          Reversed and Remanded.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            __________________________
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:           FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: 
JAMES H. FRENCH, ESQ.              MARY ANN RINI, ESQ.
1514 Terminal Tower                Assistant Attorney General
Cleveland, Ohio  44113             12th Fl, State Office Building
                                   615 West Superior Avenue
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1899
                                -2-
PER CURIAM:
     This appeal  was filed  and briefed  as an  accelerated appeal
pursuant to Local App.R. 25.
     Joseph Goodwin, plaintiff-appellant, appeals  the dismissal of
his  administrative appeal  and  action  for declaratory  judgment.
Goodwin assigns the following error for our review:
     THE   TRIAL  COURT  ERRED   IN  GRANTING   THE  DEFENDANT
     ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION  TO DISMISS THE  AMENDED COMPLAINT
     AND  THE   COMPLAINT  FOR  DECLARATORY   JUDGMENT.    THE
     ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION WAS NOT INTERLOCUTORY IN NATURE,
     AND THEREFORE, WAS  AN APPROPRIATE BASIS  FOR DECLARATORY
     JUDGMENT.
     For the reasons  set forth  below, we reverse  and remand  the
decision of the trial court.
     Joseph Goodwin claimed he sustained an injury in the course of
and arising out  of his  employment at Quality  Custom Builders  on
June 24,  1991.   The Bureau  of Workers'  Compensation denied  his
claim  and found he  did not sustain  any injuries.   No appeal was
taken.   On  February  18, 1993,  Goodwin filed  a motion  with the
Industrial Commission of  Ohio requesting relief from  the decision
of the Bureau  of Workers'  Compensation under R.C.  4123.522.   He
claimed he  did not  get  notice of  the hearing  and the  decision
denying the  claim.   A hearing  was held  on his  motion, and  the
motion was denied.  
     Goodwin subsequently filed  an action  in the Cuyahoga  County
Court  of Common  Pleas against Wes  Trimble, Administrator  of the
Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the Industrial Commission of Ohio,
and Quality Custom Builders, Defendants-appellees.   In his amended
                                -3-
complaint, he appealed the decision of the Industrial Commission of
Ohio, and sought a  declaratory judgment to establish his  right to
relief under R.C.  4123.522.  The  Administrator for the Bureau  of
Workers'  Compensation moved to dismiss  the complaint.  The motion
was granted and this appeal followed.
     The  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  held an  Industrial  Commission
decision concerning the issue of notice  under R.C. 4123.522 is not
appealable under R.C.  4123.512 (formerly R.C. 4123.519).   Afrates
v. Lorain  (1992), 63 Ohio  St.3d 22.   In Afrates, the  court also
held "***an administrative decision that is final may be challenged
by  a writ  of  mandamus, where  appropriate, or  in an  action for
declaratory judgment."  Id. at 27.  
     Because Goodwin appeals from a decision involving the issue of
notice under R.C. 4123.522, direct appeal to the common pleas court
was not a  remedy available to him.  Nonetheless, under the Supreme
Court's  holding  in Afrates,  Goodwin  may maintain  a declaratory
judgment action.  Notwithstanding the lack  of a direct appeal from
the Industrial Commission's decision, the  common pleas court still
has  jurisdiction  to  entertain  a  declaratory  judgment  action.
Accordingly,  this  case  is  reversed  and  remanded  for  further
proceedings  in  Goodwin's  action  for  declaratory   judgment  to
determine whether he is entitled to relief under R.C. 4123.522.
     Judgment reversed and remanded.
                                -4-
     This cause is reversed and remanded.
     It is, therefore,  considered that  said Appellant recover  of
said Appellees his costs herein.
     It is ordered  that a special mandate be sent to said Court 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.
Exceptions.
                              JAMES D. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE
                              PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
                              JAMES M. PORTER, JUDGE
     N.B.   This entry is  made pursuant to  the third sentence  of
Rule  22(D),  Ohio  Rules  of  Appellate  Procedure.   This  is  an
announcement of  decision (see Rule  26).   Ten (10) days  from the
date hereof this  document will be stamped to  indicate journaliza-
.