2017 Ohio 7577
Ohio2017Background
- Sherry L. Redwine was injured at work in 2003; her claim was allowed for several conditions including psychological and physical injuries.
- The Industrial Commission awarded Redwine permanent-total-disability (PTD) benefits under R.C. 4123.58 based solely on the allowed psychological condition, payable for life.
- Redwine later applied for permanent-partial-disability (PPD) benefits under R.C. 4123.57(A) based on her allowed physical conditions; she conceded the psychological condition was not a basis for additional PPD.
- A district hearing officer denied concurrent awards; on reconsideration a staff hearing officer granted PPD for the physical conditions, reasoning concurrent awards may be based on different allowed conditions within the same claim.
- Employer OPRS sought mandamus; the court of appeals denied relief. This court granted direct appeal, initially reversed in Ohio Presbyterian I, then reconsideration was granted and oral argument held. The Supreme Court ultimately reaffirmed that the Commission lacks statutory authority to award R.C. 4123.57(A) PPD in the same claim where R.C. 4123.58 PTD is being paid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Redwine) | Defendant's Argument (OPRS/Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission may award R.C. 4123.57(A) PPD in the same claim where R.C. 4123.58 PTD is already awarded | Commission may grant concurrent awards when PPD is based on allowed conditions different from the condition that supported PTD | Commission lacks authority to award concurrent R.C. 4123.57(A) PPD with R.C. 4123.58 PTD in the same claim; statutes must be applied as written | Held: Commission has no statutory authority to award R.C. 4123.57(A) PPD in the same claim where R.C. 4123.58 PTD is being paid; writ granted to vacate the PPD award |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 150 Ohio St.3d 102 (court’s prior decision addressing the same statutory question)
- State ex rel. Murray v. Indus. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 473 (precludes simultaneous PPD and PTD for the same injury)
- State ex rel. Missik v. Youngstown, 65 Ohio St.3d 189 (analysis focusing on allowed medical conditions in concurrent-benefits questions)
- State ex rel. Hoskins v. Indus. Comm., 87 Ohio St.3d 560 (discussion of scope of allowed conditions and compensation)
- Indus. Comm. v. Kamrath, 118 Ohio St. 1 (1928) (workers’ compensation rights exist only as granted by statute)
- State ex rel. Gassmann v. Indus. Comm., 41 Ohio St.2d 64 (mandamus proper when Commission misinterprets law)
- State ex rel. Kaska v. Indus. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 743 (purpose of PPD under R.C. 4123.57 is to compensate workers who can still work)