State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St. 3d 243

Johnson sought RC 4123.57(B) scheduled-loss compensation for a claimed total loss of use of his right hand after an occupational injury in 2007.
Medical evidence included a 27% impairment finding by Dr. Renneker and a stated functional loss of use, though the addendum did not clearly rescind the impairment.
Dr. Funk's August 2008 report agreed on restrictions but concluded there was no total loss of use, relying on a strict interpretation of loss of use.
The Industrial Commission initially denied, then reversed, the award, with the staff hearing officer citing Renneker's report yet also considering Funk's restrictions.
The court of appeals vacated the award, ruling Renneker’s inconsistent conclusions made the report unreliable evidence for a total loss.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that an internally inconsistent medical report cannot be relied upon, and remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can an internally inconsistent medical report support a total loss of use?	Johnson contends Renneker's 27% impairment plus total loss conclusion is inconsistent.	Kroger contends the report supports loss of use when considered with other evidence.	No; inconsistent report cannot support total loss.
How should 'loss of use' be determined when reports mix impairment with functional loss?	Johnson argues a narrative loss of use can coexist with impairment figures.	Kroger argues impairment figures govern and must align with loss-of-use conclusion.	Impairment and narrative loss must be reconcilable; mismatch defeats reliance.
Does a high impairment percentage automatically negate a total-loss award?	Johnson's impairment suggests substantial loss; total loss may still be found under 'for all practical intents'.	Kroger argues a high impairment does not equal total loss of use.	High impairment does not automatically preclude total loss, but must be reconciled with practical loss.
Is remand appropriate when medical evidence is conflicting?	Johnson urges resolution based on existing records; no new evaluation needed.	Kroger supports clearer evidentiary basis before awarding.	Remand to commission for proper reconciliation of medical evidence.

State ex rel. Gassmann v. Indus. Comm., 41 Ohio St.2d 64 (1975) (scheduled loss expanded beyond amputation)
State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d 402 (1979) (loss of use concept applied to paraplegia)
Alcoa Bldg. Prods. v. Indus. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 341 (2004) (for all practical purposes; residual utility allowed)
State ex rel. Lopez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 445 (1994) (implied need for reconcilable medical opinions)
State ex rel. Isaacs v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 82 (2002) (percentage alone not determinative; evidence must support total loss)
State ex rel. AutoZone, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 186 (2008) (high impairment can support total loss where appropriate)