State Ex Rel. Estate of Sziraki v. Admr., Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 2013 Ohio 4007

Dean Sziraki sustained catastrophic brain and spinal-cord injuries in a May 14, 1991 work accident and remained quadriplegic for years.
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation paid medical and nursing-home expenses and required periodic condition updates.
In 2002, Dean was granted permanent-total-disability benefits for loss of use of arms and legs, with payments starting March 20, 2002.
Dean died January 8, 2007; he had no spouse or dependents; his estate sought death benefits including accrued scheduled-loss benefits.
A district hearing officer awarded 850 weeks of scheduled-loss benefits but limited retroactive payment to 104 weeks due to the two-year limit in R.C. 4123.52(A); the estate sought mandamus to obtain full 850 weeks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bureau had a duty to pay scheduled-loss benefits during life without an application.	Estate: bureau should sua sponte award benefits to incapacitated worker.	Bureau: statute requires an application; policy is discretionary.	No, absence of application precludes awards.
Whether the two-year retroactive payment limit bar after death was proper.	Estate: benefits accrued from injury date; more than 104 weeks payable.	Limit applies; accrual requires timely application.	Properly limited to 104 weeks prior to death.
Whether the estate could recover more than accrued benefits at death to the extent of loss of use of all four extremities.	Estate entitled to 850 weeks; death benefits should include full accrual.	Only accrued, unpaid amounts at death are payable as death benefits.	Estate could recover only accrued, unpaid benefits.
Whether the filing requirement can be imposed after death to trigger eligibility.	Estate should not be penalized for lack of timely filing in absence of guardian.	Application initiation is required to begin process.	Authority to require application; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the award should be paid concurrently or consecutively.	Estate preferred concurrent payments.	Commission has discretion to pay consecutively.	Commission did not abuse discretion; payments may be consecutive.

State ex rel. Moorehead v. Indus. Comm., 112 Ohio St.3d 27 (2006) (scheduled-loss benefits under 4123.57(B))
State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 418 (2002) (interpretation of scheduled-loss awards)
State ex rel. Estate of McKenney v. Indus. Comm., 110 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (accrued but unpaid benefits at death)
State ex rel. Welsh v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d 402 (1979) (claimant diligence and agency duties)
State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 267 (2002) (two-year statute of limitations applicability)
State ex rel. Justice v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 34 (2002) (limitations and claims processing)
State ex rel. Drone v. Indus. Comm., 93 Ohio St.3d 151 (2001) (statutory triggering of limitations via application)