|
Supreme
Court Cases
Here are some of theSupreme Court cases
which attorneys from Stewart Jaffy and Associates Co., L.P.A. have
participated in either by representing an injured worker or a union or
as an amicus curiae (friend
of the Court). If
the cases are posted on the Supreme Court's web site, you can click on
the Supreme Court's case number to see the text of the opinion on the
Supreme Court's web site:
- Cleveland
Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc.
(12/15/04), Supreme Court Case No. 2004-0817: Non-attorney
representatives are permitted to represent parties before the
Industrial Commission and BWC under certain circumstances. For a
more detailed summary, click
here.
- State
ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. (12/18/02),
Supreme Court Case No. 2001-0643: Statute permitting suspicionless
drug testing of injured workers is unconstitutional. For a more
detailed summary, click here.
- State
ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm. (11/15/00),
Supreme Court Case No. 98-2287: Estate of injured worker is
entitled to accrued but unpaid benefits.
- State
ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (8/9/00), Supreme
Court Case No. 98-556: Injured worker who left job of injury
to work at a different job retained eligibility for future temporary
total. For a more detalied summary of this case, click here.
- Bunger v. Lawson Co.
(8/5/98), Supreme Court Case No. 97-341: Injured
worker who suffered a type of injury (psychiatric-only) which was
excluded by statute from workers' compensation coverage could sue the
employer in negligence because the workers' compensation exclusivity
provisions only apply to an "injury" which is covered by the workers'
compensation statutes. For
a more detailed summary, click here.
- Specht
v. BP America, Inc. (6/30/99), Supreme Court Case
No. 98-001: Two-year limitation of R.C. 4123.84 does not apply
to a claim for residual condition. (A residual condition occurs when a
problem in another part of the body results from an injury, in this
case a psychological condition was caused by a back injury.) Claim for
residual condition must be considered within the Commission's
continuing jurisdiction. For a more detailed summary, click here.
- Johnson
v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (4/14/99), Supreme Court
Case No. 97-2723: Declared employment intentional tort
statute, R.C. 2745.01, unconstitutional. For a more detailed summary, click here.
- State ex rel. Russell v. Indus. Comm.
(8/5/98), Supreme Court Case
No. 96-61: If there is conflicting evidence
over whether or not injured worker's condition is at maximum medical
improvement, proper date for terminating temporary total is the date of
the hearing which determines that the injured worker's condition is at
maximum medical improvement and Commission cannot declare overpayment
for amount paid before the hearing. For a more detailed summary, click here.
- State,
ex rel. Crabtree v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation
(12/30/94), Supreme Court Case No. 94-1319: When there is
conflicting evidence about whether an injured worker's medical
condition remains one of temporary and total disability, the Bureau of
Workers' Compensation cannot terminate temporary total disability
benefits until a district hearing officer rules.
- State,
ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Voinovich (4/8/94),
Supreme Court Case Nos. 93-2057, 93-2059 and 93-2060: This
case established that substantive changes to the workers' compensation
law must be subject to challenge by referendum. It also declared an
employment intentional tort statute (R.C. 2745.01) unconstitutional.
- State
ex rel. Blake v. Indus. Comm. (12/11/92), Supreme
Court Case No. 91-1575: Industrial Commission required to
establish guidelines to govern decision-making in permanent total
disability claims.
- Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (8/27/91),
Supreme Court Case No. 90-166: Declared employment intentional
tort statute, R.C. 4121.80, unconstitutional.
- Schell v. Globe Trucking, Inc. (1/3/90),
Supreme Court Case No. 88-1372: A worker is entitled to
receive workers' compensation for an aggravation of a pre-existing
condition if the aggravation was due to the work, even if the
aggravation was not "substantial."
- Village v. General Motors Corp. (12/31/84),
Supreme Court Case No. 84-222: An injured worker can receive
workers' compensation for a gradually developing injury (an injury
which occurs over time, instead of from a specific incident).
- State, ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm.
(3/9/82), Supreme Court Case No. 81-908: This case determined
that "temporary total disability" exists when the injury prevents the
injured worker from returning to the former position of employment .
|