State, ex rel. Murray, v. Indus. Comm.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90-657,91-42,s. 90-657 |
| Citation | 588 N.E.2d 855,63 Ohio St.3d 473 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, ex rel. MURRAY, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees. The STATE, ex rel. SMIDDY, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al. |
In 1975, appellant-claimant, John Murray, Jr., was declared permanently and totally disabled as a result of an injury sustained some five years earlier in the course of and arising from his employment with appellee, Consolidation Coal Company. In 1987, claimant applied for permanent partial disability compensation ("PPD") under former R.C. 4123.57(B) for the same injury. An Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") district hearing officer dismissed the application, since claimant was already receiving permanent total disability compensation ("PTD"). Claimant's request for reconsideration was denied.
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging a right to concurrently receive PPD and PTD for the same injury. The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right, in case No. 90-657.
In 1986, relator-claimant, Paul L. Smiddy, was declared permanently and totally disabled due to an injury sustained more than five years earlier in the course of and arising from his employment with respondent, Speedcraft Shoe Service, Inc. In 1990, claimant sought PPD for the same injury. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation dismissed claimant's application because claimant had already been declared permanently and totally disabled. Claimant raised an objection to the bureau's action with respondent Industrial Commission, but a hearing was never held.
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in this court seeking to compel the commission to hold a hearing and to further process his application for PPD.
The cases have been consolidated for purposes of argument and final determination.
R.E. Goforth Co., L.P.A., and Terrance J. McGonegal, New Philadelphia, for appellant Murray in case No. 90-657.
Hanlon, Duff, & Paleudis Co., L.P.A., and John G. Paleudis, St. Clairsville, for appellee Consolidation Coal Co. in case No. 90-657.
Dorf & Rife, Joan H. Rife and Michael D. Dorf, Toledo, for relator Smiddy in case No. 91-42.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Squillace and Dennis L. Hufstader, Columbus, for appellee and respondent Indus. Com'n of Ohio in case Nos. 90-657 and 91-42.
Two questions are now before us: (1) Does claimant have an adequate remedy at law, thus precluding mandamus relief? and (2) Can a claimant concurrently receive PPD and PTD for the same injury? For the following reasons, we answer both questions in the negative.
We preliminarily reject the contention of appellee Consolidation Coal Company that an appeal to the court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.519 provides an adequate remedy at law. A claimant's ability or inability to concurrently receive PPD and PTD for the same condition does not involve claimant's right to participate in the State Insurance Fund and is not appealable. See Afrates v. Lorain (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 584 N.E.2d 1175.
The merit issue raised by claimants herein also lacks merit. While not expressly addressing the contemporaneous payment of PPD and PTD for the same injury, former R.C. 4123.57 evinces a legislative intent to prohibit simultaneous receipt of these benefits.
The former versions of R.C. 4123.57(D), applicable at the time of claimant's injuries herein, elaborately specify that compensation for partial disability under former R.C. 4123.57(B) shall be in addition to compensation for periods of temporary total disability. Reference to concurrent payment of PPD and PTD benefits is conspicuously absent. Equally significant, the former versions of R.C. 4123.57(A) prohibit an application for PPD earlier than forty weeks after the date of termination of the latest period of total disability. This latter provision effectively prevents concurrent payment and, in the cases at bar, justifies the dismissal of claimants' PPD applications, i.e., if the permanent total disability compensation is ongoing, then the requisite forty-week waiting period obviously has not elapsed.
Claimant Murray's reliance on State, ex rel. Latino, v. Indus. Comm. (1968), 13 Ohio...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm.
-
Felty v. AT & T Technologies, Inc.
...partial disability and permanent total disability be paid concurrently appealable under R.C. 4123.519. State ex rel. Murray v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 473, 588 N.E.2d 855 (mandamus held to be the proper An example highlights the distinction between appealable and non-appealable d......
-
Howard Univ. Hosp. v. Dept. of Emp. Serv., No. 06-AA-356.
...for temporary total disability or temporary partial disability." Id. at 43-44; see also State ex rel. Murray v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio, 63 Ohio St.3d 473, 588 N.E.2d 855, 857 (1992) (concurrent benefits for permanent total disability and temporary total disability denied because applicab......
-
State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Ret. Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
...that the physical and psychological conditions were the result of the same workplace injury and under State ex rel. Murray v. Indus. Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 473, 588 N.E.2d 855 (1992), a claimant is precluded from receiving simultaneous benefits for permanent partial disability and permanent t......