Posted: November, 1999
Court Indicates Psychiatric Exclusion Unconstitutional
Bailey v.Republic
Engineered Steels, Inc., et al. (11/1/99), Stark Co.
App. No. 1999CA-00084.Note: The Ohio Supreme Court accepted an appeal from this decision and ruled that the injured worker could receive workers' compensation, but did not find the psychiatric exclusion unconstitutional.
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: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
(1) Psychiatric conditions except where the conditions have arisen from an injury or occupational disease;
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.
This information was provided courtesy
of the Ohio
Workers'
Compensation Bulletin.