COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70208 MARIE F. LONGACRE, : ACCELERATED DOCKET : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND v. : : OPINION PENTON PUBLISHING COMPANY, ET AL., : : PER CURIAM : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 27, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 261765 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: William L. Blake 900 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellee, Wm. Michael Hanna Penton Publishing Co.: SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY 4900 Society Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1304 For defendants-appellees, Mark E. Mastrangelo James Conrad, Administrator Assistant Attorney General of Bureau of Workers' Compensation Ohio and Industrial Commission of State Office Building Ohio: 12th Floor 614 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -3- PER CURIAM: Appellant, Marie F. Longacre, is appealing the trial court's order removing the case from the docket, the order denying appellant's Civ.R. 56(F) motion and the order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Penton Publishing Company. This appeal is not timely, because the final order which resolved all the issues in this case was the order granting summary judgment to appellee, entered July 25, 1994. See Civ.R. 54, R.C. 2505.02, App.R. 4. Additionally, the issues raised in this appeal are res judicata, because they could have been raised in the previous appeal, Longacre v. Penton Publishing Co. (Sept. 21, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68465, unreported. See Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67, State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175. In any case, we would overrule appellant's assignments of error. Appellant's first assignment of error should be overruled because the trial court decided all the issues before it. As for the second assignment of error, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's Civ.R. 56(F) motion when the discovery sought was not material. See Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 663. Appellant sought to discover whether appellee had knowledge of appellant's right leg injury, which knowledge does not constitute notice under R.C. 4123.84. Appellant's third and fourth assignments of error lack merit. Appellant produced no evidence that she gave notice of a claim for injury to her right leg to the Industrial Commission, the Bureau of -4- Worker's Compensation or her employer. See R.C. 4123.84. Even if the employer did have notice, the employer has no duty to report the body part injured to the Commission. Cf. Lahoud v. Ford Motor Company (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 149. Notice to a state fund employer does not constitute the notice under R.C. 4123.84. Appellant's fifth assignment of error would be overruled. The court decided all issues by granting appellee's motion for summary judgment, so the court did not have to rule on appellant's subsequently filed motion for summary judgment. We now consider whether this appeal was frivolous, presenting no reasonable question for review. App.R. 23, Parks v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 426. In some situations, if an appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it is inappropriate to find there was no reasonable question for review. Parks, supra. It may be appropriate to find that there were no reasonable grounds for an appeal which is obviously untimely. The appeal here was not obviously untimely, because appellant raised a colorable argument that the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee did not resolve all the issues in the case. We find there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as untimely filed. -5- This cause is dismissed for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs assessed against plaintiff-appellant. 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. LEO M. SPELLACY, CHIEF JUSTICE DAVID T. MATIA, JUDGE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, 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 journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .