State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 102
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Sherry L. Redwine sustained a workplace injury (2003) with allowed conditions including lumbar spine injuries and depression; she was later awarded permanent-total-disability (PTD) benefits based solely on the psychological condition.
- In 2013 Redwine applied for permanent-partial-disability (PPD) benefits based on her physical/orthopedic conditions and conceded she was not seeking PPD for the psychological condition.
- A district hearing officer denied the PPD application as statutorily barred from concurrent receipt with PTD in the same claim; on reconsideration a staff hearing officer allowed consideration of the PPD claim because the physical conditions were not the basis of the PTD award.
- Redwine’s employer (OPRS) sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals to vacate the commission’s order; the court of appeals denied the writ.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the Industrial Commission has no authority to award PPD under R.C. 4123.57(A) when PTD under R.C. 4123.58 has already been awarded in the same claim, even if the PPD is based on different allowed conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission may award PPD in a claim after PTD already awarded in the same claim | Redwine: PPD for allowed physical conditions is permissible because those conditions were not the basis for the earlier PTD award | OPRS: No statutory authority permits concurrent PPD and PTD in the same claim; commission abused discretion | The commission lacks authority; concurrent PPD and PTD in the same claim is prohibited |
| Whether R.C. 4123.95 (liberal construction) allows reading concurrent-award authority into statutes | Redwine: Liberal construction favors injured workers and supports concurrent awards | OPRS: Liberal-construction statute does not allow courts to add what statute does not authorize | R.C. 4123.95 cannot be used to create authority absent in clear statutory language |
| Whether case law permits concurrent awards when based on different allowed conditions within same claim | Redwine: Prior cases permitting concurrent awards should apply because they focus on allowed conditions, not the claim | OPRS: Precedent (Murray/Hoskins) bars concurrent or overlapping awards in the same claim | The Court distinguishes cases allowing concurrent awards across different claims from Murray/Hoskins and holds same-claim concurrent awards barred |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to compel the commission to vacate its order | OPRS: Commission acted beyond statutory authority and mandamus should issue | Commission/Redwine: Commission acted within discretion interpreting statutes | Mandamus granted; commission ordered to vacate the decision considering PPD in the same claim receiving PTD |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Murray v. Indus. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 473 (1992) (concurrent PPD and PTD for the same injury is not authorized by the statute)
- State ex rel. Hoskins v. Indus. Comm., 87 Ohio St.3d 560 (2000) (overlapping PPD and PTD in the same claim is impermissible regardless of payment sequence)
- State ex rel. Missik v. Youngstown, 65 Ohio St.3d 189 (1992) (concurrent awards allowed where separate claims and allowed conditions differ)
- State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 62 Ohio St.2d 147 (1980) (permitting concurrent PPD and PTD where awards arise from different claims and distinct conditions)
- Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58 (2013) (R.C. 4123.95’s liberal-construction mandate cannot be used to alter clear statutory meaning)