Brown v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
2011 Ohio 3695
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Brown sustained a work-related left knee injury in 1995 while employed by RTA and his claim was approved.
- Brown took full disability leave in 1997 and has relied on self-treatment for over a decade.
- In 2010, Brown sought reactivation of his dormant 1995 claim to cover certain medical treatments; RTA denied.
- The Ohio Industrial Commission denied Brown’s request; a staff hearing officer affirmed the denial.
- Brown filed a complaint in the common pleas court seeking review; RTA moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.512.
- The trial court dismissed, holding the OIC decision on extent of treatment is not appealable and the action belonged in mandamus or other review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the OIC denial under R.C. 4123.512 | Brown claimed the denial terminates participation in the fund. | RTA argued the decision concerns extent of disability and is not appealable under R.C. 4123.512. | Dismissal proper; denial did not terminate participation; no jurisdiction under 4123.512. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Indus. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 236 (1992) (denial to reactivate benefits under an existing claim does not foreclose all future compensation)
- Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 276 (2000) (right-to-participate review limited to whether injury occurred in course of employment)
- Felty v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 65 Ohio St.3d 234 (1992) (interlocutory requests are not claims and not appealable)
- Ochs v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 2010-Ohio-2103 (2010) (denial of coverage for specific treatment does not foreclose reactivation when related to a claim)
- Ortiz v. G & S Metal Products Co., 2009-Ohio-1781 (2009) (court rejected dismissal when treatment need was eliminated for pre-existing injury)