Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions: 2016 Court of Appeals

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions

2016 Court of Appeals

This page lists Ohio Court of Appeals workers’ compensation decisions summarized in 2016, except for decisions adopting a lower court or Magistrate decision, or which decide a case based on a previous decision.

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For older Court of Appeals workers’ compensation decisions see our Court of Appeals archive page or see our case index for decisions organized by topic.

December 2016

Hornyak v. Reserve Alloys L.L.C. (12/29/16)

Employment: Where it is not clear that defendant company in lawsuit was the employer who contracted with a temporary agency for injured worker’s services, defendant company is not entitled to summary judgment due to workers’ compensation immunity because only an employer who pays workers’ compensation premiums (either directly or indirectly) is entitled to immunity.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Kilbane
Appellate District:
 8

White v. Tomkins Industries Inc. (12/27/16)

Trial Practice: Because decision denying treatment request due to intervening injury did not terminate claim it could not be appealed to court under R.C. 4123.512.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Shaw
Appellate District:
 3

Rolsen v. Walgreen Co. (12/22/16)

Injury: Injury resulting from adverse reaction to voluntary vaccination provided during working hours by employer did not occur in the “course of” employment and was not compensable.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District:
 8

Deems v. Minute Men, Inc. (12/21/16)

Injury: Going and coming rule bars employee who worked for temporary agency from participating for injury suffered in auto accident which occurred after work when they were driving to the agency to pick up their paycheck.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Mock
Appellate District:
 1

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

Administrative Practice: 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

Dunlap, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/13/16)

Fraud: Commission finding of fraud is limited to time after BWC altered definition of “work” on form signed by injured worker because until that definition informed worker that unpaid activities constituted work there was no basis for assuming that injured worker knew that unpaid activities were improper and knowledge is a required element for finding fraud.

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

November 2016

Carlisle Brake & Friction, State ex rel. v. Codney (11/22/16)

Medical: C-9 form filled out by doctor, on its own, constitutes “some evidence” to support Commission decision to grant request for medical services.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
10

Sanders, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/10/16)

Death: Dismissal of injured worker’s claim on merits in employer’s appeal to court, due to injured worker’s death, precludes award of accrued but unpaid temporary total compensation to surviving spouse because injured worker in such a situation was not entitled to temporary total award.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District:
 10

Alhamarshah v. Salem (11/8/16)

Trial Practice: Trial court can consider whether administrative appeal was validly filed as part of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal; however, injured worker failed to properly raise issue since notice of appeal and complaint filed in Common Pleas Court failed to reference Commission’s order granting administrative appeal.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
 10

Alexander v. Boston (11/2/16)

Injury: Fellow servant rule applied to prevent negligence suit against co-worker based on injury caused by accident in parking lot immediately outside place of employment during lunch break because accident occurred in the course of, and arising out of, employment.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Whitmore
Appellate District:
9

Roberts, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/1/16)

Wage Loss: Injured worker who is working at physical and mental limitation is not required to conduct good faith job search to receive working wage loss.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
10

October, 2016

Williams v. Minute Men Select, Inc. (10/21/16)

Trial Practice: Doctors’ diagnoses in medical records were properly excluded because they did not meet requirements for admission under any hearsay exception.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs separately
Opinion by: Judge Gwin
Appellate District:
5

October 7, 2016

Thomas v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (10/7/16)

Trial Practice: Evidentiary errors, which included permitting hearsay in doctor’s testimony and improperly admitting claim file from previous workers’ compensation claim which contained prejudicial hearsay diagnoses and irrelevant information about benefits, justified trial court’s decision to grant new trial.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Donovan
Appellate District:
 2

October 5, 2016

Higgins v. Buehrer (10/5/16)

Trial Practice: Court must review all evidence admitted at trial before issuing ruling.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hendon
Appellate District:
1

September, 2016

September 27, 2016

Ohio Paperboard, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/27/16)

VSSR: Commission properly applied safety code provision covering an “operator” of a machine to a mechanic who operated machine in maintenance mode, even though he did not operate the machine during its normal operation; nor did employee’s actions justify denial of VSSR award because unilateral negligence defense only applies if the employer initially complied with the requirements of the safety code.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
 10

September 9, 2016

Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. Petty (9/9/16)

Trial Practice: Trial court improperly found injured worker was not a “claimant” when granting summary judgment against BWC in subrogation claim because evidence indicated claim had been allowed before settlement was executed.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Yarbrough
Appellate District:
 6

September 1, 2016

Manor Care, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/1/16)

Temporary Total: When determining whether injured worker lost eligibility for temporary total because they abandoned their employment, the proper issue is whether they were totally disabled when they left their employment — not whether they were actually receiving temporary total compensation at that time.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
 10

August, 2016

<< No Decisions Indexed >>

July, 2016

<< No Decisions Indexed >>

June, 2016

June 21, 2016

31, State ex rel. Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (6/21/16)

VSSR: Commission cannot apply provision permitting BWC to grant exception to literal requirements of VSSR rule in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to deny VSSR award when BWC did not grant any exception before the injury occurred.

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

June 9, 2016

Cunningham v. Bone Dry Waterproofing, Inc. (6/9/16)

Injury: Although painter worked at as many as five locations in a day, each of those locations was a fixed situs, so the going and coming rule applies to determine whether he is entitled to participate for an injury which occurred during travel.

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

May, 2016

May 12, 2016

Kljun v. Morrison (5/12/16)

Amputation/Loss of Use: Legislative amendment contained in budget bill which change method of payment for R.C. 4123.57(B) amputation/loss of use award violated the Ohio Constitution’s one-subject rule because there is no relationship between the state’s budget and the payment of the award (which is paid either directly by self-insurers or from the state fund created by employer premium payments, rather than from the state’s budget).

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Kilbane
Appellate District:
 8

May 6, 2016

Hill v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, Inc. (5/6/16)

Occupational Disease: Doctor’s evidence which did not state basis of, or provide medical authority to support, doctor’s opinion that workplace exposure caused disease, was not sufficient to withstand employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Osowik
Appellate District:
 6

May 3, 2016

Holman v. Shiloh Grove Ltd. Partnership (5/3/16)

Trial Practice: Court’s editing of transcripts used to present doctor’s testimony did not prejudice claimant, because even though resulting testimony was disjointed, the disjointed nature of the resulting testimony was minor and not prejudicial to claimant.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Luper Schuster
Appellate District:
 10

April, 2016

April 26, 2016

Kenney v. Ables (4/26/16)

Employment: Coemployee has immunity under R.C. 4123.741 from a tort suit arising out of actions which occurred in the course of and arising out of the employment from both a tort suit by the injured party and a derivative loss of consortium suit by the injured party’s spouse.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Hoffman
Appellate District:
5

April 12, 2016

Willis v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (4/12/16)

Injury: Post-laminectomy syndrome is not just a symptom, but is a specific condition which may be the subject of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Hoover
Appellate District:
 4

March, 2016

March 31, 2016

Yates v. G&J Pepsi-Cola Bottlers, Inc. (3/31/16)

Trial Practice: Dismissal of complaint did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction over appeal, and injured worker could refile complaint within one year provided by savings statute.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Harsha
Appellate District:
 4

Young v. Craig Transp. Co. (3/31/16)

Trial Practice: Whether injured worker had waived right to file claim in Ohio does not involve right to participate and cannot be challenged through R.C. 4123.512 appeal.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Osowik
Appellate District:
 6

March 17, 2016

Ford v. Sunbridge Care Ents. (3/17/16)

Trial Practice: Although doctor’s report should not have been admitted as evidence, improper admission of report was harmless error in light of other testimony and did not affect outcome of case.

Vote: 2-1
Opinion by: Judge Gallagher
Appellate District:
 8

February, 2016

February 23, 2016

Anderson v. Bueher (2/23/16)

Evidence used to initially support allowance of additional conditions as injuries did not also support granting a claim for substantial aggravation of those conditions because it did not differentiate the claims.

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

February 16, 2016

Dillard v. Automation Tool & Die, Inc. (2/16/16)

Injured worker has no right under Civil Rule 41(A)(1)(a) to unilaterally dismiss an employer’s R.C. 4123.512 appeal to court.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Judge Hensal
Appellate District:
9

January, 2016

January 25, 2016

Dennis v. Gen. Motors Corp.(1/25/16)

The requirements of R.C. 4123.68(Y) for asbestosis claims do not apply to claims for asbestos-related lung cancer because asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer are distinct diseases; Industrial Commission Resolution R03-1-02 requires “injured workers” to submit evidence and does not apply to a death claim filed by a dependent who is not an injured worker.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Rogers
Appellate District:
 3

January 22, 2016

Woods v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (1/22/16)

Injury: Evidence, including doctor’s MRI review and testimony regarding cause of substantial aggravation, satisfied statutory standard for establishing substantial aggravation claim.

Vote: 3-0
Opinion by: Judge Welbaum
Appellate District:
 2

January 19, 2016

Medina, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/19/16)

Temporary Total: Report from August, 2014 examination which gave no opinion of injured worker’s condition in February, 2014, does not provide some evidence to support Commission finding that condition reached MMI in February, 2014.

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

January 12, 2016

Bennett, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/12/16)

Continuing Jurisdiction: Commission cannot exercise continuing jurisdiction based on claimed “mistake of law” where SHO order at issue applied the proper legal standard.

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