Wage Loss Cases: Medical Requirements (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Wage Loss: Medical 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.

Babcock, State ex rel. v. ENSR Corp. (7/1/98)

Wage loss compensation must be based on allowed condition. However, non-allowed condition does not bar wage loss compensation if the allowed condition causes sufficient disability to entitle the injured worker to wage loss compensation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Frederick, State ex rel. v. Licking Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (6/24/98)

If allowed condition does not prevent injured worker from returning to former position of employment, injured worker is not entitled to wage loss compensation. Where injured worker has been laid off, but was capable of performing their former position of employment, the injured worker is not entitled to wage loss. If allowed condition does prevent injured worker from returning to former position of employment, injured worker can be entitled to wage loss compensation, regardless of whether the job has been abolished.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jaynor, State ex rel. v. The Gerstenslager Co. (12/22/99)

Wage loss is not payable when the injured worker is earning as much as before the injury. Nor can wage loss be paid when there is not medical evidence demonstrating that the inability to return to the former position of employment is due to the allowed condition(s).

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

WCI Steel, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/10/02)

Non-allowed conditions are irrelevant, if allowed conditions are disabling. Therefore doctor’s report, on form provided by Bureau, which indicated inability to work was due to allowed conditions supported wage loss even if report made reference to disabilities in additional parts of the body (which was information requested by Bureau). Doctor’s report was not inconsistent where doctor in narrative limited claimant to lifting 15 pounds, and checked on Bureau form that claimant could never lift 10-20 pounds, because answers were consistent.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam