Amputation, Loss of Use Cases: Loss of Use

(Supreme Court)

Click on the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the decision of a lower court or Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are excluded.

Alcoa Building Products, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm.s (7/7/04)

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

Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc.., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/3/10)

Loss of use award cannot be based solely on report by physical therapist who is not a licensed physician.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Franks, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/16/03)

Where only medical evidence to address issue demonstrated that claimant had suffered loss of use of one-half of big toe, claimant was entitled to award for loss of use of one-half of big toe.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Green, State ex rel. v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities (12/4/02)

Ankylosis is not only condition which will entitle claimant to compensation for loss of use; any condition which results in total loss of use justifies loss of use award.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Isaacs, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/31/02)

Doctor's report which found much wrong with foot, but not total loss, was "some evidence" to support Commission denial of award for loss of use of foot.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Moorehead, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/20/06)

Payment of loss of use award must be made where injured worker suffered loss of use even if he only survived for a short time after injury and never regained consciousness.

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur separately
Opinion by: Moyer

Amputation, Loss of Use Cases: Loss of Use

(Supreme Court)

Alcoa Building Products, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm.s (7/7/04)

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: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc.., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/3/10)

Loss of use award cannot be based solely on report by physical therapist who is not a licensed physician.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Franks, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/16/03)

Where only medical evidence to address issue demonstrated that claimant had suffered loss of use of one-half of big toe, claimant was entitled to award for loss of use of one-half of big toe.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Green, State ex rel. v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities (12/4/02)

Ankylosis is not only condition which will entitle claimant to compensation for loss of use; any condition which results in total loss of use justifies loss of use award.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Isaacs, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/31/02)

Doctor's report which found much wrong with foot, but not total loss, was "some evidence" to support Commission denial of award for loss of use of foot.

Vote: 6-1Opinion by: Per Curiam

Moorehead, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/20/06)

Payment of loss of use award must be made where injured worker suffered loss of use even if he only survived for a short time after injury and never regained consciousness.

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur separatelyOpinion by: Moyer

Injured at Work?

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur separately
Opinion by: Moyer