Medical Cases: Evidence (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Medical: Evidence

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.

Carey, State ex rel. v. Am. Seaway Foods, Inc. (11/17/99)

Commission can reject medical evidence which post-dates the period of disability as non-probative of the injured worker’s condition during the period of disability.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Chrysler Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/25/98)

Where doctor issues contradictory opinions due to mistake, and later clarifies the opinion, Commission can rely on that medical evidence in making determination. Pre-existing condition is not the same as pre-existing disability, therefore even if injured worker had a pre-existing condition, this does not affect eligibility for compensation based on aggravation of that condition.

Vote: 4-0, 3 concur/ dissent
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

Conrad, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/17/00)

Injured worker sought payment for surgery in her claim. Court held that Commission could not rely on doctor’s report which pre-dated need for surgery to deny surgery because claim worsened after that doctor’s report. Court found that the evidence required the Commission to pay for the surgery.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Crocker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/8/06)

Commission cannot rely on medical opinion from a doctor when it has previously rejected that opinion even if the report stating that opinion has not previously been considered.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

George, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/30/11)

Inconsistencies in doctor’s report which do not affect validity of doctor’s opinion that surgery is not necessary due to allowed condition do not invalidate report.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Kish, State ex rel. v. Kroger Co. (5/14/13)

Commission can deny award based on doctor’s addenda to his initial report even though it implicitly rejected initial report because although addenda relied on same findings as initial report it addressed different issue.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Kroger Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/24/98)

Doctor’s description of psychological condition was sufficient, even if not identical to allowed condition, because some latitude is necessary when considering psychological conditions. Commission could determine that medical report was not too old, and could determine that the doctor’s opinion with respect to the permanence of the injured worker’s condition was not changed by the amount of time that had passed.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

LTV Steel Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/24/99)

Signature-stamped medical report is valid evidence which may be considered for determining workers’ compensation benefits.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concur judgment only
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Osco Industries, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/10/02)

Medical evidence supported Commission’s decision to order surgery to relieve pain. Doctor’s pessimistic statements about result does not contradict recommendation of surgery, but indicates doctor was reluctant to guarantee success.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sears Logistics Services, Inc., State ex rel. v. Cope (8/9/00)

Medical report which considers only one of two allowed conditions must be considered in determining whether or not injured worker has reached maximum medical improvement where second condition is no longer disabling (as reported by doctor supporting continued temporary total).

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Thompson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/12/98)

Commission could not rely on C-19 fee bill forms from doctor as evidence of injured worker’s disability status.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Warnock, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/24/03)

Minor discrepancies as to height and age of claimant, and one incorrect statement of claimant’s name (when claimant’s name is correctly identified eight other times) do not render medical reports invalid.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam