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:

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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.
   
   
8. 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.
   
   
9. 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.
   
   
10. 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.
    
    
11. 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.
    
    
12. Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (8/27/91), Supreme Court Case No. 90-166: Declared employment intentional tort statute, R.C. 4121.80, unconstitutional.
    
    
13. 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."
    
    
14. 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).
    
    
15. 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 .