|
|
|
2004
Ohio Supreme Court Decisions
This page lists the workers'
compensation decisions made by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004. To see
the full text of a case on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site, click on
the case name.
December 22
|
Adams,
State ex rel. v. Aluchem, Inc. (12/22/04)
|
Permanent Total: Back award of
statutory permanent total cannot be made more than 2 years before date
of motion requesting payment.
|
Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Justice Moyer
|
|
| Arth
Brass & Aluminum Castings, Inc. v. Conrad (12/22/04) |
Employer: BWC cannot charge
Employer's risk with cost of medical payments made while appeal is
pending, until final decision is reached on appeal.
|
Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer
|
|
| Regal Ware, Inc.,
State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/22/04) |
Occupational Disease: Different
standard applies to first 30 weeks of change of occupation award than
later 100 weeks. First 30 weeks do not require job search, but
later 100 weeks do.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
December 15
|
Cleveland
Bar Assn. v. CompManagement (12/15/04)
|
Administrative Practice: Non-attorney representation before
the Commission and BWC is permitted as long as it is consistent with
Industrial Commission Resolution R04-1-01.
|
Vote: 4-2, 1
concur in judgment
Opinion by: Justice Resnick |
|
| Dayton
Foods Ltd. Partnership, State ex rel. v. Unger (12/15/04) |
Temporary Total: Dispute between
employer and treating doctor would not justify termination of temporary
total; C-84s were valid evidence of temporary total, doctor is allowed
to anticipate return to work date after scheduled appointment and is
not required to fill out a new form to extend the anticipated work date
after the appointment.
|
Vote: 6-1, 1
concur in judgment
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
December 1
|
Lawson,
State ex rel. v. Mondie Forge (12/1/04)
|
Permanent Total: Evidence of
claimant's activities must be viewed in context, permanent total
claimants are not required to remain housebound. Evidence of
claimant's activities did not demonstrate ability to perform activities
on sustained basis sufficient to find that claimant was not entitled to
continued receipt of permanent total.
|
Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
November 24
|
Gobich, State ex rel. v.
Indus. Comm.
(11/24/04)
|
Continuing Jurisdiction/Permanent Total:
Disagreement over interpretation of facts does not justify exercise of
continuing jurisdiction to review order. Permanent total
compensation is awarded when an individual cannot perform sustained
remunerative employment; isolated and brief work activities do not
establish ability to perform sustained remunerative employment.
|
Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
November 3
|
Gen. Elec. Corp., State ex rel. v.
Indus. Comm.
(11/3/04)
|
Amputation/Loss of Use: Worker who
receives corneal lens implants remains entitled to award for total loss
of vision because award for loss of vision is based on uncorrected
vision.
|
Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
<< No decisions indexed >>
September 22
|
Schuller v. United States Steel Corp.
(9/22/04)
|
Trial Practice: Claimant who wins
right to participate at trial is entitled to reimbursement for cost of
fee charged by expert witness for live testimony, if trial court
determines that fee is reasonable.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Sweeney
|
|
<< No decisions indexed >>
July 7
|
Alcoa Building Products, State ex
rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/7/04)
|
Amputation/Loss of Use: Commission
properly granted amputation award for left arm which could not be used
except to push open a car door or tuck a piece of paper under because
arm was useless for "all practical intents and purpose."
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
June 23
|
Frisch's
Restaurant's, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/23/04)
|
Temporary Total: Doctor's finding
that claimant's condition had reached MMI, but that claimant's symptoms
would gradually dissipate, was inconsistent and therefore not valid
evidence of MMI.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
June 9
|
Timmerman
Truss, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/9/04)
|
Amputation/Loss of Use: Commission
order granting award for loss of use of hand must consider evidence of
post-injury activities in determining whether award is appropriate.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
May 19
|
Sachdeva,
State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/19/04)
|
| Fraud: Evidence supported finding
that claimant who lied about income while receiving living
maintanence wage loss committed fraud; evidence that claimant could
physically perform previous work also supported finding of overpayment.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
|
|
May 12
|
Baker
Concrete Constr. , Inc., State
ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/12/04)
|
Average Weekly Wage: Commission must
consider intent of worker in determining whether to exclude seasonal
unemployment from average weekly wage calculation. AWW is adjusted for
periods of unemployment beyond a claimant's control but is not adjusted
if seasonal unemployment exists because claimant made lifestyle choice.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
Jordan,
State ex rel. v.
Indus. Comm. (5/12/04) |
| Wage Loss:
Lack of overtime can be basis of wage loss claim if lack of overtime is
causally related to injury. |
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
White
v. Conrad (5/12/04) |
Trial Practice: If right to
participate in the workers' compensation system has already been
determined, a decision that the claimant can no longer participate can
be appealed under R.C. 4123.512.
|
Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Pfeifer |
|
April 28
|
Miesse,
State ex rel. v. Holophane Corp. (4/28/04)
|
Continuing Jurisdiction:
Letter notifying Commission that attorney was acting as employer's
representative was sufficient notice to justify R.C. 4123.522 relief
when Commission failed to provide representative with notice of order.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
|
|
April 14
|
Bowen,
State ex rel. v. Do It Best
Corp. (4/14/04)
|
Wage Loss: Even if wage loss
claimant voluntarily limited herself to part-time work, O.A.C.
4125-1-01(F)(3)(b) requires Commission to consider wage loss for the
number of hours worked. Requirement of 90 day updates of medical
reports does not apply to a retroactive claim for wage loss
compensation.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
Nestle
USA - Prepared Foods Div.,
Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (4/14/04) |
Temporary Total: Self-Insured
employer cannot terminate temporary total compensation when treating
doctor indicates that the injured worker is capable of doing limited
work (but is incapable of doing the duties required by the job she had
been doing when injured); the restrictions support continued temporary
total eligibility even though the injured worker might also qualify for
wage loss.
|
Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
Rademacher,
State ex rel. v. Mariott
Internatl., Inc. (4/14/04) |
Temporary Total: Where injured
worker had previously been found to have voluntarily abandoned her
employment, and had not returned to work, res judicata applies and injured
worker is not eligible for additional temporary total.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
March 3
|
Borden,
Inc., State ex rel. v.
Indus. Comm. (3/3/04)
|
Impairment of Earning Capacity:
Evidence which did not indicate how injury limited claimant's
ability to work did not support impairment of earning capacity award.
|
Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
| Josephson,
State ex rel. v. Indus.
Comm. (3/3/04) |
Temporary Total: Improvement of
non-allowed condition which permitted claimant to undergo
rehabilitation did not constitute "new and changed circumstances"
sufficient to reinstate temporary total.
|
Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
| Sanor
Sawmill, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
(3/3/04) |
VSSR: Safety code provision which
did not define type of saw involved in accident and which refers to
equipment that is not part of the saw cannot be used as basis of VSSR
award.
|
Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam |
|
|
|
February 11
|
Saunders,
State ex rel. v. Indus.
Comm. (2/11/04)
|
| Administrative Practice: The
Commission was not required to follow the provisions of R.C. Chapter
119 (relating to administrative rule-making) in adopting Hearing
Officer Memo E.7 because Memo E.7 is an interpretation of statutory and
case law, not an expansion of authority. |
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam
|
|
an
January 21
|
Devore
Roofing & Painting, State
ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/21/04)
|
VSSR: Commission did not abuse its
discretion when it found that Employer committed VSSR because provision
of safety code which covered "construction equipment" applied to
scaffolding.
|
Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Resnick
|
|
|
|
|
