Administrative Practice Cases: Miscellaneous (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

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.

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc. (12/15/04)

Non-attorney representation before the Commission and BWC is permitted as long as it is consistent with Industrial Commission Resolution R04-1-01.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur in judgment
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc. (12/6/06)

Third-party administrators may offer general assistance in workers’ compensation claims, as long as the assistance does not require legal analysis, skill, citation or interpretation.

Vote: 5-0, 1 concurs in judgment only, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: O’Connor

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Korte (11/15/06)

Employer’s attorneys acted improperly when they failed to comply with O.A.C. 4123-3-09(C)(5)(a) and provide a copy of a medical report resulting from an employer’s medical exam to the claimant’s representative and BWC.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Evert, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/20/15)

Member of Industrial Commission who did not attend, listen to, or review transcript of hearing satisfied due process requirements when she reviewed claim file and discussed hearing with staff hearing officer who had been present at hearing and summarized testimony and arguments presented at hearing.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Lapp Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/5/08)

Notice of appeal from BWC order which listed wrong date for order “substantially complied” with requirements of R.C. 4123.511.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Ochs, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/23/99)

Noll requirement that Commission orders provide reasons explaining Commission decisions also applies to Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur/dissent
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Saunders, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/11/04)

The Commission was not required to follow the provisions of R.C. Chapter 119 (relating to administrative rule-making) in adopting Hearing Officer Memo E.7 because Memo E.7 is an interpretation of statutory and case law, not an expansion of authority.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sigler, State ex rel. v. Lubrizol Corp. (8/29/13)

Due Process requires a member of the Industrial Commission to conduct a meaningful review of the evidence, but does not prohibit a Commissioner who does not attend the hearing from voting when he reviews the evidence, including hearing testimony, in some other manner.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam