[Cite as State ex rel. Airborne Freight Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 369, 2008-Ohio ]

Similar documents
[Cite as State ex rel. Ignatious v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 285, 2003-Ohio-3627.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[Cite as State ex rel. Jackson Tube Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 1, 2003-Ohio ]

[Cite as State ex rel. Meissner v. Indus. Comm., 94 Ohio St.3d 203, 2002-Ohio-477.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kenney, 110 Ohio St.3d 38, 2006-Ohio-3458.]

[Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530, 2010-Ohio-580.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI Appellant Decided: August 8, 2008 * * * * *

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G JANNIE A. HYMES, EMPLOYEE PINEWOOD HEALTH & REHABILITATION, EMPLOYER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NUMBER F BRYCE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

v No MERC VASSAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LC No

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 22, 2010 Session

CORINNE R. CLARK, Petitioner, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, FRY S FOOD AND DRUG STORES OF ARIZONA, INC., Respondent Employer,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS. FILED Claimant Below, Petitioner October 10, 2017 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vinson, Dedra v. Dillard's, Inc.

A third back injury on April 28, 2003, resulted in a two-week time loss from work.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G TRACYE JOHNSON, EMPLOYEE DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., EMPLOYER

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,546 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. KEITH BENNETT, Appellee, CITY OF TOPEKA, Appellant.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F BILLY R. COOPER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT FRITO LAY, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: January 13, NO. 33,154 5 MIGUEL MAEZ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE September 21, 2009 Session

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE August 25, 2008 Session

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RAJENDRA AND ERIKA P., BEFORE THE MARYLAND. Appellant STATE BOARD MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EDUCATION. Appellee. Opinion No.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and Pamela S. Crowe, Respondents.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hayes, 118 Ohio St.3d 336, 2008-Ohio-2466.]

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED AUGUST 30, 2004

CITY OF TUCSON, Petitioner Employer, PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT, Petitioner Insurer, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

107 If I have the proofs DTA wanted, should I still ask for a hearing?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE DARRYL GENE WILLIAMS V. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.

[Cite as In re Application of Gueli, 132 Ohio St.3d 39, 2012-Ohio-1907.]

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. ** TRIBUNAL NO Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Henry H. Harnage, Judge.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,254 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID WARRENDER, Appellee, MEMORANDUM OPINION

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia (404)

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE, INSURANCE CARRIER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F OPINION FILED OCTOBER 26, 2005

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F AMIE M. WELLS, EMPLOYEE OPINION FILED JUNE 30, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKER S COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE ( January 27, 2000 Session)

Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before GREENE, Chief Judge.

Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Review Division

Case 1:09-cv WWC -MCC Document 607 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 529/97. Recurrences (compensable injury).

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F JOHNNY F. THROWER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TRIMAC, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

in December 2008 as a condition of his guilty plea to Disorderly Conduct, involving non-sex

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F ROSA CORTEZ CLAIMANT BRIGHTON HOUSE CARE CENTER OPINION FILED MAY 28, 2004

The Honorable Jason Ourso Judge Presiding

Ombudsman s Determination

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM F ROBERT LEON PAVEL, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO WC COA

Lurz, Sally v. International Paper Company

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 13, 2010 Session

NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS UNDER SECTION 504

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,598 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of ANTHONY CLARK.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed May 2, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 553/01. Continuity (of symptoms). DECIDED BY: Moore DATE: 20/03/2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 8 pages ACT: WCA

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G DAVID YERXA, Employee. NCR CORPORATION, Employer

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER January 8, 1999 ELAINE R. WEBB FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM F JENNIE LEAFERN HESTER, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT MEXICO CHIQUITO, INC., EMPLOYER RESPONDENT

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT HEARINGS BEFORE HEARING EXAMINER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 23, 2009 Session

[Cite as Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 361, 2009-Ohio ]

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals of Ohio

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

RENDERED: January 30, 1998; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 96-CA WC CONNIE BEVINS CHAPMAN OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F WESTPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER OPINION FILED JANUARY 19, 2005

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 73/09

Section 14.0 INFORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPANTS

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM F & F WILLIE LEE EVERETT, JR., EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Frederick Green v. Carr Lowery Glass Company, Inc., et al. No. 104, September Term, 2006.

Amy Sharp v. Carolyn Colvin Doc Appeal: Doc: 26 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 19 UNPUBLISHED

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

Transcription:

[Cite as State ex rel. Airborne Freight Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 369, 2008-Ohio- 1116.] THE STATE EX REL. AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Airborne Freight Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 369, 2008-Ohio-1116.] Workers compensation Industrial Commission Allowed conditions Sufficiency of the evidence Judgment affirmed. (No. 2007-0679 Submitted January 22, 2008 Decided March 19, 2008.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 06AP-122, 2007-Ohio-943. Per Curiam. { 1} Appellee David A. Paskalik was injured at work in 1998 and was awarded temporary total disability compensation from February 17, 2004, through July 26, 2005. The compensation was to be continued upon medical proof. His self-insured employer, appellant Airborne Freight Corporation, is before us seeking to vacate that award. { 2} Paskalik s workers compensation claim was originally recognized for lumbar disc. In late 2002, a letter from Airborne s third-party administrator indicated that Airborne agreed to reopen the claim for Degenerative Disc Disease L4-S1. { 3} On June 8, 2004, appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio, through a staff hearing officer, issued an order that terminated temporary total disability as of January 20, 2004, based on reports from Dr. Elizabeth Mease. Significantly, the only allowed condition listed on that order was lumbar disc. { 4} Five months later, Paskalik s workers compensation claim was additionally allowed for L4-5 disc protrusion and right L4-5 foraminal

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO stenosis. This determination was followed by a series of C-84 physician s reports from Dr. Juan M. Hernandez that attributed temporary total disability to these two conditions and degenerative disc disease L4-S1. These C-84s prompted Paskalik s motion for renewed temporary total disability in December 2004. { 5} A district hearing officer granted Paskalik s motion. A staff hearing officer, on September 9, 2005, vacated the district hearing officer s order but nevertheless granted temporary total disability compensation from February 17, 2004, stating: { 6} Staff Hearing Officer grants injured worker s request to award temporary total disability compensation * * *. Staff Hearing Officer finds that the disability is caused by the allowed conditions in this claim. Staff Hearing Officer further finds that injured worker has new and changed circumstances to justify the payment of temporary total disability compensation. This portion of the order is based on the C-84s of Dr. Hernandez * * *. { 7} At the conclusion of administrative proceedings, Airborne turned to the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. The court of appeals found that the commission s order was supported by evidence, prompting Airborne s appeal to this court as of right. { 8} Airborne initially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, focusing primarily on the question of maximum medical improvement ( MMI ). The commission s award was based on Dr. Hernandez s C-84s, which attributed Paskalik s temporary total disability to three conditions: L4-5 disc protrusion, right foraminal stenosis L4-5, and degenerative disc disease L4-S1. { 9} Airborne claims that the commission has determined that the third condition has reached MMI, and thus that Hernandez s C-84s are invalidated. Its argument derives from its belief that Dr. Mease s reports found both lumbar disc and degenerative disc disease L4-5 to have reached MMI. Because the 2

January Term, 2008 commission, in turn, relied on these reports in making its MMI declaration, Airborne maintains that the commission s declaration covered both conditions. { 10} This argument fails. Contrary to Airborne s representation, the only condition that the commission declared to have reached MMI was lumbar disc. The sole condition listed on the MMI order is lumbar disc. Because the commission speaks exclusively through its orders, State ex rel. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 139, 142, 642 N.E.2d 378, we cannot assume that degenerative disc disease was also included in that declaration, even though it was an allowed condition at the time. Hernandez s reference to degenerative disc disease is not, therefore, fatal to temporary total disability eligibility because it is not yet a permanent condition. { 11} Airborne s remaining challenges to the evidence are uniformly unpersuasive. The company suggests that Hernandez backdated the disability certification over a period that he did not treat Paskalik. Hernandez s treatment notes rebut this claim. { 12} In a similar vein, Airborne accuses Paskalik of unreasonable delay by submitting a November C-84 that retroactively certified his disability to February. This assertion, too, lacks merit. Until L4-5 disc protrusion and right foraminal stenosis L4-5 were allowed in the claim, it was pointless to seek disability compensation based on those conditions. That allowance did not occur until November 3, 2004, and just three weeks later, Hernandez had certified Paskalik as disabled by those newly recognized conditions, and Paskalik moved for compensation. { 13} Airborne last alleges that the C-84s are inconsistent with Hernandez s office notes and thus are fatally flawed. This assertion is untrue. Nothing in the office notes contradicts Hernandez s certification of a temporary disability, nor is there any indication that nonallowed or MMI conditions are contributing to Paskalik s inability to return to his former position of employment. 3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Accordingly, we conclude that Hernandez s C-84s are evidence supporting the commission s order. { 14} Airborne also criticizes the wording of the staff hearing officer s order. The company contends that even if Dr. Hernandez did not include an MMI condition in his disability assessment, the staff hearing officer did when she attributed Paskalik s disability to the claim s allowed conditions. Airborne maintains that because allowed conditions include the clearly MMI lumbar disc, the commission, by necessity, has attributed Paskalik s disability in part to a permanent condition. { 15} We disagree. The medical evidence on which the commission relied did not attribute temporary total disability to lumbar disc. Dr. Hernandez attributed Paskalik s disability to L4-5 disc protrusion, right foraminal stenosis L4-5, and degenerative disc disease L4-S1, all of which are allowed conditions. Thus, in relying on these conditions attributed by Hernandez, the commission accurately identified them as allowed conditions. Given the evidence in this case, it is inappropriate to assume that in referring to the source of disability as the allowed conditions, the staff hearing officer was referring to all allowed conditions, including lumbar disc. { 16} Finally, Airborne states that the commission s order did not satisfy State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 205, 567 N.E.2d 245, which requires the commission to briefly explain the basis for its decision. Airborne argues that when the commission found new and changed circumstances sufficient to reinstate temporary total disability without identifying those circumstances, the commission failed to meet Noll. This point is moot. New and changed circumstances are relevant in this context only if temporary total disability is being sought for a condition that has been previously declared MMI. See State ex rel. Bing v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 424, 427, 575 N.E.2d 177. Because that is not the case here, lack of identification is immaterial. 4

January Term, 2008 { 17} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. Schottenstein Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., Robert M. Robenalt, Meghan M. Majernik, and Robert J. Cochran, for appellant. Shapiro, Marnecheck & Reimer and Matthew A. Palnik, for appellee David Paskalik. Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 5