Temporary Total Cases: Maximum Medical Improvement (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Temporary Total: Maximum Medical Improvement

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.

DaimlerChrysler Corp., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/24/09)

Injured worker remains entitled to temporary total compensation when the injury is not at MMI even if the condition will permanently prevent the injured worker from returning to the former position of employment.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Houp, State ex rel. v. Transpersonnel, Inc. (8/25/99)

Authorization of weight loss program did not bar finding of maximum medical improvement. Additionally, claimant failed to sustain burden of showing causal relationship between allowed condition and inability to return to former position of employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Frisch’s Restaurant’s, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/23/04)

Doctor’s finding that claimant’s condition had reached MMI, but that claimant’s symptoms would gradually dissipate, was inconsistent and therefore not valid evidence of MMI.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Josephson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/3/04)

Improvement of non-allowed condition which permitted claimant to undergo rehabilitation did not constitute new and changed circumstances sufficient to reinstate temporary total.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Moore, State ex rel. v. Internatl. Truck & Engine (11/20/07)

Temporary total can be restarted after it has been terminated due to a finding of MMI (maximum medical improvement) when condition worsens as a result of treatment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, Inc. State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/16/00)

Claimant entitled to temporary total compensation where treating physician’s finding of maximum medical improvement was contingent upon completion of a functional capacity evaluation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Sweeney

Roadway Express, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/5/98)

Once Commission determined that injured worker’s condition was at maximum medical improvement, there was no basis for continuing payment of temporary total compensation. Employer was entitled to reimbursement from surplus fund (under former statutes) for amounts improperly paid.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Russell, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/5/98)

If there is conflicting evidence over whether or not injured worker’s condition is at maximum medical improvement, proper date for terminating temporary total is the date of the hearing which determines that the injured worker’s condition is at maximum medical improvement and Commission cannot declare overpayment for amount paid before the hearing.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur separately
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

Schirtzinger, State ex rel. v. Mihm (4/22/98)

Where BWC made conscious decision to extend temporary total compensation, there was not a clerical error which justified exercise of continuing jurisdiction to redetermine injured worker’s entitlement to temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sellards, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/22/06)

Doctor’s opinion that condition had reached maximum medical improvement was premature where doctor was unaware of approved treatment plan; because opinion was premature, it did not support order terminating temporary total based on MMI.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Spurgeon, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/12/98)

Where a treating doctor issued conflicting opinions regarding whether the injured worker’s condition was at maximum medical improvement, the proper date for finding maximum medical improvement and terminating temporary total was the date of the hearing.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Williams, State ex rel. v. Cincinnati Country Club (9/30/98)

Where weight loss program would not be curative of the injury, authorization of weight loss program did not preclude finding of maximum medical improvement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam