Clendenin v. Girl Scouts of W. Ohio (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 300
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Audrey Clendenin sustained a 2008 work injury; her workers’‑compensation claim was allowed for multiple right‑shoulder conditions, including "substantial aggravation" of preexisting dermatomyositis.
- In 2013 the BWC administrator moved to abate payment for the dermatomyositis allowed condition, asserting it had returned to the preinjury level (R.C. 4123.54(G)).
- A district hearing officer and a staff hearing officer granted the bureau’s motion and ordered cessation of compensation and medical benefits for that condition based on a medical report.
- Clendenin filed an R.C. 4123.512 appeal in Hamilton County Common Pleas, arguing her condition had not returned and benefits should continue; the bureau moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The trial court dismissed; the First District reversed, holding the abatement order was appealable. The BWC administrator appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: the decision that a substantially aggravated preexisting condition has returned to its preinjury level is an extent‑of‑disability decision (not an appealable right‑to‑participate decision under R.C. 4123.512) and must be challenged by mandamus or declaratory judgment, not by common‑pleas appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commission order finding a substantially aggravated preexisting condition has returned to its preinjury level is appealable under R.C. 4123.512 | Clendenin: the abatement terminates her right to participate in the fund for that condition and is therefore appealable under R.C. 4123.512 | Administrator: the determination concerns the extent of disability (amount/duration of benefits) and is not appealable under R.C. 4123.512 | The Court held the determination is an extent‑of‑disability decision and is not appealable under R.C. 4123.512; such decisions are reviewed by mandamus or declaratory action |
Key Cases Cited
- Zavatsky v. Stringer, 56 Ohio St.2d 386 (holding that disallowance of a condition is appealable under R.C. 4123.512 when it negates right to participate for that condition)
- Felty v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 65 Ohio St.3d 234 (decisions altering benefits are extent‑of‑disability issues and not subject to R.C. 4123.512 appeal)
- Liposchak v. Industrial Commission, 90 Ohio St.3d 276 (R.C. 4123.512 limited to orders deciding right to participate)
- Afrates v. Lorain, 63 Ohio St.3d 22 (final extent‑of‑disability decisions reviewable by mandamus or declaratory judgment)
- White v. Conrad, 102 Ohio St.3d 125 (once right to participate exists, later termination may involve right to continue to participate; jurisdictional distinction explained)