Permanent Total Cases: Compensation Denied (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Permanent Total: Compensation Denied

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.

Buswell, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/10/98)

Interlocutory award of permanent total did not require Commission to find injured worker permanent total. Order sufficiently explained reasons for denying permanent total.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Crawford, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/10/98)

Interlocutory award of permanent total did not require Commission to find injured worker permanent total. Order sufficiently explained reasons for denying permanent total.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cunningham, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/11/01)

Permanent total properly denied where Commission based denial on fact that claimant did not attempt vocational rehabilitation and no extenuating circumstances excused failure to attempt vocational rehabilitation.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Foley, State ex rel. v. Vulcan Mfg. Co. (12/2/98)

Doctor’s reports supported Commission’s decision to deny permanent total disability.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gibson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/1/98)

Interlocutory award of permanent total did not require Commission to find injured worker permanent total. Order sufficiently explained reasons for denying permanent total.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Guthrie, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/10/12)

Decision that cumulative effect of disability factors did not support award of permanent total was within hearing officer’s discretion as evaluator of evidence.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jerdo, State ex rel. v. Pride Cast Metals, Inc. (4/3/02)

Commission properly terminated permanent total award where claimant was working as a minister.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Paraskevopoulos, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/23/98)

Commission properly considered effect of pain when pain was mentioned in medical evidence relied on. Normally, failure to consider report would require case to be sent back to Commission for further consideration. In this case, nature of evidence which Commission failed to consider did not require case to be sent back. Commission’s determination that 44 year old claimant with above average intelligence could enhance his employability was not abuse of discretion.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Roy, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/23/98)

Commission properly denied permanent total where medical evidence supported decision and Commission provided sufficient explanation of denial.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam