State ex rel. Samkas v. Industrial Com'n
| Decision Date | 30 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1687,81-1687 |
| Citation | 437 N.E.2d 288,70 Ohio St.2d 279 |
| Parties | , 24 O.O.3d 364 The STATE, ex rel. SAMKAS, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Mancino, Mancino & Mancino and Paul Mancino, Jr., Cleveland, for appellant.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Richard J. Forman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee Industrial Commission.
Seeley, Savidge & Aussem Co., L. P. A., and Thomas M. Carolin, Cleveland, for appellee Midland-Ross Corp.
R.C. 4123.57(C), after setting forth a schedule for compensation applicable to the loss of a thumb, fingers, or various portions thereof, provides, in pertinent part:
"If the claimant has suffered the loss of two or more fingers by amputation * * * and the nature of his employment * * * is such that the handicap or disability resulting from such loss of fingers, or loss of use of fingers, exceeds the normal handicap or disability resulting from such loss * * * the commission may take that fact into consideration and increase the award of compensation accordingly, but the award made in such case shall not exceed the amount of compensation for loss of a hand." (Emphasis added.)
Appellant contends the benefits set forth in R.C. 4123.57(C) are consecutive in nature and, as such, where an individual loses fingers he is entitled to compensation therefor, and if a hand is subsequently lost, additional compensation becomes due. Essentially, appellant's argument requests a ruling on a hypothetical fact situation not presently before this court.
The facts in this cause are not in dispute. After the accident, appellant, the employer and the bureau agreed that the amputation of the fingers justified an award for the total loss of a hand. The statute is clear; under these circumstances additional compensation may be made but under no circumstances is the award to " * * * exceed the amount of compensation for loss of a hand." Appellant has been compensated for the loss of his hand. Accordingly, this cause is governed by our decision in State ex rel. Vaughn v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 115, wherein we stated, at page 117, 430 N.E.2d 1332:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...ex rel. Vaughn v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 115, 23 O.O.3d 161, 430 N.E.2d 1332; State ex rel. Samkas v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 279, 281, 24 O.O.3d 364, 365, 437 N.E.2d 288, 289; State ex rel. Kirk v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 360, 361, 25 OBR 411, 411-......
-
State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
...fourth findings; right and left hands; right and left great toes; and right and left feet in reliance on State ex rel. Samkas v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 279, 437 N.E.2d 288, and State ex rel. Cook v. Zimpher (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 236, 479 N.E.2d 263. Like the District Hearing Off......
-
Republic-Franklin Ins. Co. v. City of Amherst
...payments is a substantive right measured by the statutes in force on the date of the injury. State, ex rel. Samkas, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 279, 281 [24 O.O.3d 364, 437 N.E.2d 288]; State ex rel. Vaughn, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 115, 117 [23 O.O.3d 161, 430 N.E.2d......
-
State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...St. 47, 139 N.E.2d 41 ; State, ex rel. Cox, v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 235, 423 N.E.2d 441 ; State, ex rel. Samkas, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 279, 437 N.E.2d 288 . See, also, State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403 . An a......