Continuing Jurisdiction Cases: Two Year Limit (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Continuing Jurisdiction: Two Year Limit

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.

Garrett, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/24/02)

Compensation can only be awarded for two years before the application; a request for allowance of an additional condition is not an application for compensation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jaynor, State ex rel. v. The Gerstenslager Co. (12/22/99)

Two-year limitation in R.C. 4123.52 applies to claim for wage loss. Therefore, wage loss compensation cannot be paid for periods more than two years before wage loss application was filed.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Rizer, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/9/00)

The injured worker amended an application seeking compensation. The Court held that the filing date of the initial application determines when the two year continuing jurisdiction period for issuing an award begins.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Specht v. BP America, Inc. (6/30/99)

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.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Witt, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/2/18)

Two year limitation on modification of award not triggered in the absence of an application, therefore, BWC and Industrial Commission retained continuing jurisdiction to modify average weekly wage and collect overpayment.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per curiam