|
The following information is
provided courtesy of the Ohio Workers' Compensation Bulletin.
For information about the Bulletin click here.
Note:
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted an appeal from this decision. The
Supreme Court ruled that the injured worker could receive workers'
compensation, but did not find the psychiatric exclusion
unconstitutional. To read about the Supreme Court's decision, click here.
Court
indicates Psychiatric Exclusion Unconstitutional
Bailey v.Republic Engineered
Steels, Inc., et al. (11/1/99), Stark Co. App. No. 1999CA-00084.
This case involves a psychiatric-only
claim. [A psychiatric-only claim occurs where there is a psychiatric
problem without a physical injury.] The injured worker suffered the
psychiatric injury as a result of accidently running over a co-worker
with a tow motor.
The injured worker's claim had been
disallowed because there is an exclusion in R.C. 4123.01(C) which
provides
"Injury" does not include:
(1) Psychiatric conditions except where
the conditions have arisen from an injury or occupational disease;
The Court of Appeals in its decision
indicated that this exclusion of psychiatric-only claims violated the
Constitution. The Court indicated that the psychiatric exclusion
violated Equal Protection. The Court also indicated (at page 8 of its
decision) that
We find the denial of compensation of
employees who suffer psychiatric conditions which do not arise from a
compensable injury to or occupational disease suffered by that employee
is inherently unfair and contrary to the purposes of compensating
workers as set forth in Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.
The Court then determined to interpret
the statute in a different manner than other courts, in order to
provide coverage to the injured worker. The Court indicated that R.C.
4123.01(C)(1) refers to a psychiatric condition which arose from "an
injury." The Court found that there was "an injury" in the present case
because the worker who was run over by the tow motor was injured.
Therefore, the Court indicated that the claim was compensable under the
Ohio Workers' Compensation system.
|