In State v. Williams (Feb. 14, 1984), Fairfield App.No. 42-CA-83, 1984 Ohio App, a workers' compensation appeal was filed in the court of common pleas. Williams voluntarily dismissed his complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). Williams attempted to re-file his complaint more than one-year from the date of dismissal. The trial court dismissed Williams action for failure to re-file the complaint within the one-year period granted by R.C. 2305.19. In so doing, the trial court rejected Williams' argument that R.C. 2305.19 is subject to the time-extension provisions of Civ.R. 6(B). In so holding, the Williams court concluded: "By the express terms of the rule, the time-extension provisions of Civ.R. 6(B) are applicable where an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time: (1) by the Rules of Civil Procedure, excepting Rules 50(B), 59(B) and (D) and 60(B); (2) by notice given under the Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) by order of court. Had the rulemakers intended that Civ.R. 6(B) be applied to statutory provisions such as R.C. 2305.19, they would have so specified, as they did, for example, with the time-computation provisions of Civ.R. 6(A), which expressly governs the Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules of any court, order of court, or any applicable statute.