Posted: August, 2003
Temporary Total Awarded Where Evidence Shows Inability to
Work Due to Allowed Conditions
State, ex rel. Ignatious v. Indus. Comm. (7/23/03), 99 Ohio St.3d 285,
2003-Ohio-3627.Issue: Can the Commision deny temporary total when the doctor's notes reference an unallowed condition but later indicated that the injured worker is temporary total due to the allowed conditions?
Background: Ignatious was injured and his claim was allowed for a sprained neck and herniated discs C4-5 and C5-6. He had surgery for these conditions and was initially scheduled to return to work on November 6, 2000. However, he did not return to work.
On November 9, 2000, his treating doctor indicated that Ignatious could not return to work and would not be able to return to work until additional testing was performed.
On November 28, 2000, the treating doctor filled out a C-84 listing the ICD codes for the allowed conditions as allowed conditions which prevent return to work. The treating doctor had referenced her office notes which referred to both the allowed conditions and the non-allowed carpal tunnel condition in responding "no" to a question which asked if Ignatious was able to return to his former job.
The BWC sent a letter to the treating doctor questioning the reason that Ignatious was off work. The BWC indicated that it seemed that the reason that Ignatious was off work was due to the non-allowed carpal tunnel, and requested the doctor to provide clarification.
In response, the treating doctor sent the BWC her December 15, 2000 office notes. Those notes indicated that Ignatious' problem was due to the cervical disc herniations, which were causing neck pain. She also sent an additional C-84, dated January 9, 2001, which indicated that neck pain was the reason Ignatious was unable to return to work and that treatment was for the allowed conditions. The treating physician also submitted a letter which stated that Ignatious was temporary total "due to his allowed condition of sprain of neck and herniated disc C4-5 and C5-6."
The Commission denied temporary total. The Commission indicated that the C-84 of November was based on a non-allowed condition (carpal tunnel) because of the reference to the office notes. It also stated that the treating doctor had not explained why she changed her opinion from that C-84 to the later ones.
Ignatious filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals, challenging the Commission's denial of temporary total. The Court of Appeals granted a limited writ of mandamus and ordered the Commission to re-examine the evidence and issue a new order. The Commission appealed.
Decision: Supreme Court rules that Ignatious is entitled to temporary total.
The Court states that all that a claimant is required to prove in order to be entitled to temporary total is that there is a "causal relationship" between the inability to work and the allowed conditions. In the present case, the evidence from Ignatious' treating doctor did so.
The Court notes that the Commission had apparently denied temporary total because of the presence of carpal tunnel syndrome and the failure of the evidence to state that carpal tunnel was not disabling. This was improper because a claimant is not required to prove a negative.
Because all of the evidence links the inability to work to the allowed conditions, the Court finds that Ignatious is entitled to temporary total and orders payment of temporary total.
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.