Posted: March, 1999
Treating Doctor Explains Ambiguous Report
State, ex rel. Petronio v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/99), 84 Ohio St.3d 427.Issue: Can the Commission deny temporary total based on a doctor's report which seems to indicate that the injured worker is not temporary total, but which is later clarified by the doctor?
Background: Petronio was receiving temporary total. His doctor documented his continued temporary total with medical reports. Some of the doctor's reports represented that Petronio's condition had become permanent and others suggested that other nonallowed conditions had caused his disability.
The doctor later explained his conflicting report, but BWC had already cut off temporary total and assessed an overpayment. The Commission administratively affirmed the BWC. Court says issue is whether the Commission had authority to reject the doctor's explanation. Court of Appeals denied mandamus.
Decision: Supreme Court reverses (6-1). Court says this case is similar to State, ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 649. The Court in Eberhardt held that "[w]here a physician renders an ambiguous opinion regarding a claimant's medical condition but thereafter clarifies the ambiguity, the Industrial Commission may not revive the ambiguity as a basis for rejecting the physician's opinion."
Petronio's doctor explained in his last report that Petronio's condition was temporary total and was the result of his work injury. The Eberhardt rule required the Commission to accept the doctor's explanation notwithstanding the Commission's authority to determine credibility.
There is no other evidence that Petronio's condition had become permanent or MMI. The Court thus finds that the Commission abused its discretion in terminating temporary total and declaring an overpayment.
This information was provided courtesy
of the Ohio
Workers'
Compensation Bulletin. Click on the case name to
view this decision on
the Supreme Court's web site.