Temporary Total Cases: Evidence (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

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.

Airborne Freight Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/19/08)

Commission’s order continuing temporary total supported by some evidence.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Barnes, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/19/07)

Commission’s failure to consider exacerbation of condition in denial of temporary total requires remand so that Commission can consider that issue; fact that issue does not appear in Commission’s order does not mean it was waived for failure to raise argument administratively because fact that Commission is not required to list all evidence in order means that order does not demonstrate all evidence presented or issues raised.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Bercaw, State ex rel. v. Sunnybreeze Health Care Corp. (8/13/08)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in relying on report of reviewing doctor (who did not examine injured worker) over the report of the examining doctor when it determined to deny temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Coleman, State ex rel. v. Schwartz (4/30/13)

Commission properly terminated temporary total based on a report from a limited medical examination because the report identified the basis of the doctor’s finding that the condition had reached maximum medical improvement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Earls, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/4/02)

Because there was no medical evidence relating inability to work to allowed condition, claimant was not entitled to temporary total.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gibson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/25/09)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in failing to accept treating doctor’s opinion that condition rendered injured worker temporarily and totally disabled.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gregg, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/1/00)

Court holds that medical evidence relied on supports Commission decision to deny temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Griffith, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/28/06)

Commission decision that injured worker was not entitled to receipt of temporary total must be based on evidence, not speculation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hampe, State ex rel. v. MTD Products, Inc. (2/10/99)

Commission improperly terminated temporary total. Commission cannot grant reconsideration based on unspecified error, and where there is conflicting medical evidence termination of temporary total cannot be back-dated to date of doctor’s report — proper date of termination is date of hearing.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concur/ dissent
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hillside Dairy Co., State ex rel. v. Conrad (1/13/99)

Evidence supported Commission’s decision to award temporary total disability.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Ignatious, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/23/03)

Claimant is not required to prove that a non-allowed condition is not disabling; where medical evidence links claimant’s temporary total disability to allowed condition, claimant is entitled to temporary total disability compensation.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Kestler, State ex rel. v. Wellness Ctr. Health Assoc., L.L.C. (6/11/09)

Commission must clarify what part of doctor’s opinion it is relying on when denying temporary total based on a medical report which contained different conclusions which could lead to different results.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Kirkendall, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/17/99)

Evidence supported Commission determination that injured worker was not entitled to temporary total compensation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

L.P. Cavett Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/2/08)

Doctor’s opinion that injured worker was temporary total based on allowed psychological condition of depressive disorder was some evidence to support temporary total award even though doctor had previously indicated disability was due to a major depression because doctor consistently indicated disability due to a depressive condition, and the only difference between the two conditions was the severity of the depression.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

M. Weingold & Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/16/02)

Substantial inconsistencies between two C-84 reports resulting from same examination mean that C-84 reports are not some evidence to support temporary total award. Where temporary total compensation payments are not “ongoing”, provision requiring payment of ongoing compensation until hearing does not apply.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Martin, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/6/02)

Where there was no valid evidence supporting temporary total claim, Commission properly denied temporary total and properly ordered recoupment of temporary total improperly paid.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

McClain, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/9/00)

Evidence supported Commission determination that injured worker was not entitled to temporary total compensation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

McCormick, State ex rel. v. McDonald’s (1/20/15)

Subsequent
request for, and approval of, treatment plan does not automatically invalidate doctor’s opinion that condition has reached maximum medical improvement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Ohio Treatment Alliance, State ex rel. v. Paasewe (5/16/03)

Claimant returned to work after period of temporary total, worked for a few days, and was then fired. Claimant then claimed he was temporary total. Medical evidence which did not indicate that condition worsened, or why condition prevented claimant from working after release to return to work, did not support temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Packaging Corp. of Am., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/2/14)

Commission decision to grant temporary total was supported by evidence in file, and Commission is not required to explain why it chose to rely on one medical report over another.

Vote: 5-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Petronio, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/99)

Where doctor explained his ambiguous opinion, Commission could not rely on that doctor’s report to find that the injured worker’s condition was at maximum medical improvement.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Schlosser, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/23/02)

Report from doctor who did not believe allowed condition existed does not support finding MMI because doctor gave opinion about status of a different condition.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Scouler, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/12/08)

Order which states that it considered all relevant evidence, but does not discuss relevant evidence contained in the record, is not a valid order.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Starr, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/19/07)

Psychologist’s report was some evidence to support denial of temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sears Logistics Services, Inc., State ex rel. v. Cope (8/9/00)

Medical report which considers only one of two allowed conditions must be considered in determining whether or not injured worker has reached maximum medical improvement where second condition is no longer disabling (as reported by doctor supporting continued temporary total).

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Thorn, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/17/00)

Commission denied temporary total. In doing so, it relied on fact that the only evidence of temporary total were two C-84 forms. This finding improperly ignored evidence because there was a narrative report in the file. Had Commission considered the narrative report, it might have reached a different result. Failure to consider important, probative evidence requires remand to Commission for further consideration.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Tracy, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/2/09)

Exacerbation of allowed condition is not new injury and does not justify denying temporary total; hearing officer cannot create inference from doctor’s report by taking isolated words out of context.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vance, State ex rel. v. Marikis (9/1/99)

Report which examined claimant’s entire back presumably included additional back condition which was subsequently allowed, and therefore supported denial of temporary total, because of the nature of the allowed conditions.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Yellow Freight System, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/11/98)

Commission cannot award temporary total where there is no medical evidence linking disability to injury.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam