State ex rel. Varney v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion), 143 Ohio St. 3d 181

Varney lost four fingers in a 1983 work accident; middle, ring, and little fingers were reattached, index finger partially reattached but not fully functional.
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation compensated for amputation and subsequent partial losses of use in 1985, 1990, and 1998.
Varney sought total loss of use of left index, ring, and little fingers in 2010; the Industrial Commission denied for lack of a legally valid medical report and because the issue had been decided decades earlier.
The Tenth District granted mandamus, remanding to apply a correct standard for loss of use.
The Supreme Court held the commission properly denied total loss of use for the three fingers, applying medical impairment analysis rather than Rodrı́guez’s thumb standard.
There is a dissent arguing remand under the plain statutory language.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodrı́guez applies to finger loss or only to the thumb.	Varney—Rodríguez should apply to fingers.	Commission—Rodríguez not applicable to fingers; use impairment.	Rodríguez does not apply; use impairment-based standard.
Whether the statute provides a numerical threshold for total finger loss.	Total loss can be shown by significant impairment, per Alcoa.	No fixed two-thirds threshold; rely on medical impairment.	No numerical threshold; rely on physician impairment to determine loss of use.
Whether the Burdge report can support a total loss finding.	New medical evidence supports total loss.	Bur dre report shows remaining function; not total loss.	Commission properly relied on Burdge report to deny total loss.

State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 243 (2011-Ohio-530) (page on impairment vs narrative; supports impairment-based analysis)
State ex rel. Alcoa Bldg. Prods. v. Indus. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 341 (2004-Ohio-3166) (loss of use may be awarded without full amputation; practical loss standard)
State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d 402 (1979) (recognizes loss of use without amputation)
State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist Franklin No. 08AP-910, 2009-Ohio-4834 (2009-Ohio-4834) (held to apply thumb-specific threshold for ankylosis when determining total loss)
State ex rel. Gassmann v. Indus. Comm., 41 Ohio St.2d 64 (1975) (early guide to scheduled losses beyond amputation)
State ex rel. Meissner v. Indus. Comm., 94 Ohio St.3d 203 (2002) (context for scheduled losses and impairment standards)