Permanent Total Cases: Order Requirements (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Permanent Total: Order Requirements

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.

Corona, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/6/98)

Commission order denying permanent total must set forth what physical capabilities the Commission finds the injured worker has. Where Commission order accepts contradictory medical conclusions about an injured worker’s physical capabilities, case must be returned to the Commission for the Commission to clarify.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gemind, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/29/98)

Commission’s order denying permanent total did not adequately explain how disability factors supported decision to deny permanent total. Commission did not explain how injured worker with limited abilities was qualified to obtain G.E.D. Commission’s findings regarding injured worker’s limited abilities conflict with its finding that injured worker could obtain G.E.D.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Hartness, State ex rel. v. Kroger Co. (4/22/98)

Commission cannot deny permanent total based on impairment and youth where injured worker lacks intellectual capability to be retrained. Where an injured worker had only worked at heavy labor, as a result of injury could only perform sedentary work, and is functionally illiterate, permanent total must be awarded.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

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

Where Commission just recites injured worker’s non-medical profile, without explanation of how it renders injured worker capable of sedentary work, explanation is insufficient. Additionally, reference to “sedentary low stress positions in the food service industry” must be explained because jobs in that industry are generally considered neither sedentary nor low stress.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Rothkegel, State ex rel. v. City of Westlake (5/17/00)

Injured worker challenged permanent total denial order. Court held that (1) order’s listing of evidence relied on (rather than all evidence considered) was valid, and (2) although Commission had a responsibility to consider effect of age, failure to do so where all other vocational factors were positive did not invalidate order.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam