Medical Cases: Treatment (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Medical: Treatment

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.

Avalon Precision Casting Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/24/06)

Where two doctors opined that MRI would be “reasonable and necessary” procedure for assisting treatment of injured knee, some evidence supported Commission’s decision to authorize MRI.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Blanton, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/16/03)

Commission’s conclusion that medical evidence did not support a causal connection between treatment and injury was not an abuse of discretion.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Navistar Internatl Transp. Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/23/06)

Commission is not required to consider facility costs incurred by self-insured employer’s creation of on-site physical therapy facility when determining whether cost of physical therapy at another location is medically reasonable.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sears Roebuck & Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/20/11)

Commission abused its discretion by ordering payment of medical bill when there was no evidence indicating potential connection between allowed condition and treatment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sugardale Foods, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/20/00)

Commission has jurisdiction to rule on claim for medical services and approve or deny medical treatment.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton