Permanent Total Cases: Medical Evidence (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Permanent Total: 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.

Bray, State ex rel. v. Hamilton Fixture Co. (8/29/06)

Commission did not act improperly when it relied on medical report which had been prepared for a temporary total issue in making its permanent total decision.

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

DaimlerChrysler Corp., State ex rel. v. Majerowski (12/7/06)

Doctor’s report which indicated limitations on claimant’s ability to work supported Commission decision to grant permanent total even though Commission had denied an earlier application for permanent total.

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

Deal, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/16/10)

Industrial Commission cannot reject medical report for arbitrary reason.

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

Howard, State ex rel. v. Millenium Inorganic Chemicals (12/9/04)

Commission order improperly denied permanent total where medical restrictions contained in report cited by Commission to support permanent total denial are inconsistent with sustained remunerative employment.

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

Hudson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/13/13)

When the Commission rejects all medical evidence, its decision to deny permanent total is invalid because it is not based on any evidence and the Commission must base its decision on medical evidence demonstrating the effect of the allowed conditions on the injured worker’s ability to work.

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

Jackson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/21/11)

Internally inconsistent report cannot support denial of permanent total.

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

Kaiser Found. Health Plan Ohio, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/21/10)

Opinion of doctor on combined effects of physical and psychiatric conditions was valid even if doctor had only examined injured worker on psychiatric condition and had not expressly adopted factual findings of doctors who had physically examined injured worker. Requirement that non-examining doctor expressly adopt findings of examining doctors only applies to doctors who conduct no examination of injured worker but base their opinion on a file review.

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

Lampley, State ex rel. v. GM Assembly Div.-GMC (8/1/02)

Medical evidence did not support Commission’s decision to deny permanent total.

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

Metz, State ex rel. v. GTC Inc. (2/12/13)

Commission improperly relied on doctor’s opinion that injured worker could perform sedentary work because doctor reported restrictions which conflict with administrative code definition of sedentary.

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

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/31/12)

Commission did not act improperly when it sent supplemental evidence to its examining doctors after their examination of injured worker.

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

Ohio State Univ., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/28/12)

Doctor’s report that injured worker had 17% impairment and could not work due to chronic pain from injury supported permanent total award and was not “internally inconsistent.”

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

Seitaridis, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/21/11)

Commission must clarify interpretation of medical evidence in order which found injured worker capable of “light” work, but failed to analyze effect of restrictions on use of right upper extremity in doctor’s report relied on.

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

Terry,
State ex rel. v. The Andersons, Inc.
(9/23/14)

Requirement of recent medical report to process permanent total application does not mean that older medical evidence is necessarily stale.

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

Tradesman,State ex rel. Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (3/20/14)

Doctor’s report which indicated worker could not perform sustained remunerative employment and provided low impairment rating was not internally inconsistent, and therefore Commission did not improperly rely on report in order granting permanent total.

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

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/1/06)

Where two of three medical reports relied on by Commission order granting permanent total could not validly be relied on, and third report was not some evidence that condition was permanent total, Commission’s order granting permanent total is vacated and the Commission must rehear the issue.

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