Administrative Practice Cases: Miscellaneous (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Administrative Practice: Miscellaneous

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Alhamarshah, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/27/13)

Commission has broad discretion to determine whether party attempting administrative appeal substantially complied with statutory requirements.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Tyack
Appellate District: 10


Brinker v. Frontier North, Inc.
(12/21/16)

Physician’s letter challenging BWC denial of claim did not constitute appeal because physician was not designated as injured worker’s representative and only a party or their representative may appeal.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Carr
Appellate District:
 9

Cesa, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/10/07)

Where Commission issued incorrect notice of hearing, proper remedy is to vacate order and require Commission to issue proper notice of the issues to be considered at the hearing and then issue a new order after holding the hearing.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Bryant
Appellate District: 10

Coastal Pet Prods., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/15)

Previous denial of workers’ compensation claim filed by employer, without injured worker’s signature or consent, did not bar injured worker from filing later claim for the injury because first claim did not constitute a valid application for workers’ compensation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Sadler
Appellate District:
10

DaimlerChrysler Corp., State ex rel. v. Lopez (9/6/05)

R.C. 4123.511(J), governing recoupment of overpayments, does not apply to recoupment of amounts paid in error; statutory provision only applies to overpayments created by a judicial or administrative reversal of a previous order to pay compensation.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Klatt
Appellate District: 10

Draper v. N. Am. Science Assocs., Inc. (6/1/18)

Res judicata does not bar third workers’ compensation claim when one of previous claims was dismissed without a ruling on the merits and the other previous claim involved different dates, mechanisms of injury and descriptions of injury (even though the alleged injury was to the same body part).

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Jensen
Appellate District:
 6

Evert, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/31/12)

Commissioner who did not attend hearing, or review transcript or electronic version of hearing improperly cast deciding vote.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Tyack
Appellate District: 10

Gen. Elec. Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/28/07)

BWC/IC could reactivate claim which Industrial Commission dismissed for failure to comply with resolution setting forth requirements for asbestos claim when those requirements were satisfied; claimant is not required to file new claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge French
Appellate District: 10

Navistar, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/10/04)

Commission did not violate due process by considering temporary total denial on employer’s appeal when claimant had not appealed DHO’s denial of temporary total. Appeal by one party at administrative level makes the entire order subject to review.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District: 10

Sigler, State ex rel. v. Lubrizol Corp. (9/27/11)

Commissioner who voted to deny permanent total without attending or reviewing hearing violated injured worker’s right to due process.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Tyack
Appellate District: 10

Steinbrunner, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/30/06)

Commission had no jurisdiction to consider whether intervening injury had occurred where no notice had been provided to claimant that that issue was going to be considered at hearing; consideration of issue not included in notice of hearing violates Due Process.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Travis
Appellate District: 10

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/5/07)

SHO is not required to remand case to DHO for hearing on the merits when disagreeing with DHO decision to dismiss case.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Grey
Appellate District: 10