Fraud Cases: Miscellaneous (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Fraud: 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.

Allied Holdings, Inc. v. Meade (12/18/06)

Employer cannot bring suit for fraud against claimant in common pleas court where Commission refused to make finding of fraud.

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

Bumpus, State ex rel. v. Dayton (6/3/10)

Absent evidence that injured worker had received money for activities, or engaged in activities inconsistent with his medical restrictions, there was no basis for finding that injured worker had engaged in fraud by receiving temporary total.

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

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

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

Goodwin, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/18/08)

Injured worker did not commit fraud when he received temporary total even though he worked for 33 hours after applying for temporary total while waiting for bureaucracy to process his request.

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

Griffith, State ex rel. v. Radix Wire Co. (5/5/05)

Evidence did not support Commission finding of fraud in receipt of temporary total compensation. Finding of fraud must be based on evidence, not speculation and also requires evidence of intent to defraud.

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

Grossenbacher, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/9/10)

Evidence supported finding that claimant who was paid for driving membuers of the Amish community multiple times a week was engaged in sustained remunerative employment and therefore committed fraud by doing so while receiving permanent total compensation.

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

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

Commission improperly found fraud when the evidence did not establish that claimant knew what activities constituted “work” for purposes of temporary total compensation.

Vote: 2-0, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Judge Brown
Appellate District: 10

Newsome, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/17/14)

Where Commission continued hearing to subpoena witness due to doubts about affidavit which conflicted with other statements made by witness, Commission erred by later relying on affidavit to find fraud without hearing testimony from witness.

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

Perez, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/19/15)

Although evidence supported finding that injured worker was not entitled to receipt of temporary total compensation, evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that injured worker who had never misled BWC, and who had disclosed existence of business to BWC multiple times, committed fraud.

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

Schultz v. Admr. (7/9/02)

Commission finding of fraud cannot be appealed pursuant to R.C. 4123.512.

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

Walters, State ex rel. v. WEK Acquisition Corp., Inc. (7/29/10)

Evidence of claimant’s work activities while receiving temporary total and statements regarding her work activities and earnings which were inconsistent with her actual activities and earnings were sufficient to support Commission’s finding of fraud.

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

Williams, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/24/07)

A Mary Kay consultant did not engage in fraud based on sales activities primarily conducted by others during the period she received temporary total and wage loss compensation.

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