Temporary Total Cases: Evidence (Court of Appeals)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Court of Appeals)

Temporary Total: 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.

Americare Corp., State ex rel. v. Logan (2/11/03)

After temporary total is terminated based on finding of maximum medical improvement, evidence from treating doctor that injured worker was suffering increased pain and needed treatment justified commission finding that new and changed circumstances justified new award of temporary total.

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

Campbell, State ex rel. v. Conrad (5/30/02)

Medical opinion that injured worker was not temporarily and totally impaired did not consider proper issue and was not support for decision to deny temporary total disability award.

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

Certified Oil Corp., State ex rel. v. Mabe (7/31/07)

Doctor’s opinion certifying temporary total after doctor indicated condition was MMI was invalid when doctor did not provide any explanation for his change in opinion.

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

Fries, State ex rel. v. Admr., B.W.C. (6/25/02)

Doctor’s report which found claimant suffered from some psychological conditions could be used as evidence to support temporary total even though Commission relied on report finding different psychological conditions in granting additional allowance because parts of report were severable.

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

Goodwin, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/16/02)

Case remanded because ambiguous statement by doctor in office notes required further interpretation and explanation.

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

Lawson,
State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm.
(10/9/14)

Medical evidence supported Commission termination of temporary total based on finding of MMI.

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

Kohl’s Dept. Stores, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/20/03)

A psychologist is qualified to give an opinion as to whether or not a claimant’s allowed condition of depression has reached maximum medical improvement even where psychiatrist believes that the source of the depression is a medical condition.

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

Medina, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/19/16)

Report from August, 2014 examination which gave no opinion of injured worker’s condition in February, 2014, does not provide some evidence to support Commission finding that condition reached MMI in February, 2014.

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

Portman, State ex rel. v. Manpower, Inc. (2/3/05)

Doctor’s report which gave opinion on a different condition than the allowed condition is not valid evidence to support Commission’s order finding MMI.

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

Ruddock, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/7/02)

Where doctor indicates that injured worker cannot return to any form of work on C-84 form, but on same day fills out worksheet indicating claimant could perform light duty work, doctor’s opinion is ambiguous.

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

Rutherford, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/4/07)

Commission properly relied on opinion in medical report which had previously been rejected by Commission when denying temporary total because the part of the report previously rejected was severable from the part at issue in the temporary total claim.

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

Wagner, State ex rel. v. Vi-Cas Mfg. Co. (5/17/07)

Doctor who examined worker both before and after period of temporary total at issue was competent to give opinion supporting award of temporary total compensation.

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