State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
Decision Date | 03 December 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 95-743,95-743 |
Citation | 686 N.E.2d 507,80 Ohio St.3d 352 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. EATON CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, Cross-Appellee; Baker, Cross-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Cross-appellant/claimant Frankie L. Baker was injured in September 1977 while employed as a junior inspector for cross-appellant Eaton Corporation, a self-insured employer. Her workers' compensation claim was allowed for "acute cervical muscle strain with right brachial neuritis; chronic muscle strain and sprain of right trapezius and bursitis of right scapula; anterior cervical interbody arthrodesis C5-6." She last worked in August 1982, after which time she began receiving temporary total disability compensation. On September 15, 1986, Eaton moved cross-appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for permission to terminate claimant's temporary total disability compensation. On October 21, 1986, claimant responded with a motion for permanent total disability compensation.
On October 24, 1986, a district hearing officer issued this order:
That order was administratively affirmed.
After a series of hearings unrelated to this case, claimant's permanent total disability motion was finally heard on August 27, 1992. Among the evidence before the commission were three reports from the claimant's attending physician, Dr. K.A. Zacour. The October 17, 1986 report stated:
* * * "
One month later, Dr. Zacour completed two questionnaires. In a questionnaire to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Dr. Zacour listed the allowed conditions. He stated that claimant could do no work due to "chronic back pain." In a questionnaire prepared by Dr. Zacour for Eaton on the same day, he attributed part of claimant's shoulder and neck symptomatology to a nonallowed degenerative condition.
Claimant was also examined by commission specialist Dr. William G. Kraus, who reported:
The commission granted claimant permanent total disability compensation, finding that she was medically incapable of sustained remunerative employment. That order was based on the reports of Drs. Kraus and Zacour.
In late 1993, Eaton filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging, among other things, that the commission abused its discretion in awarding permanent total disability compensation and, earlier, in awarding temporary total disability compensation subsequent to the declaration of permanency. The appellate court upheld the award of permanent total disability compensation, but vacated the award of temporary total disability compensation. The court ordered the commission to reimburse Eaton from the state Surplus Fund for temporary total disability compensation paid beyond October 24, 1986, and also held that there was to be no offset of funds against future compensation to the claimant.
This cause is now before the court upon cross-appeals as of right.
Willacy & LoPresti, Aubrey B. Willacy and M. Scott Young, Cleveland, for cross-appellant and cross-appellee Eaton Corporation.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for cross-appellee Industrial Commission.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gralewski v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
... 855 N.E.2d 879 ... 167 Ohio App.3d 468 ... 2006-Ohio-1529 ... GRALEWSKI, ... In 1992, he was charged in a Michigan state court with 13 felony counts of various offenses, ... rather than simply interprets it." State ex rel. Saunders v. Indus. Comm., ... 855 N.E.2d 888 ... Eaton Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 ... 855 ... ...
-
Wilkes Associates v. Hollander Industries Corp.
...breach of contract claim on the basis of their affirmative defense of waiver. B. Laches In State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 80 Ohio St.3d 352, 686 N.E.2d 507 (1997), the Ohio Supreme Court Laches is "an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length......
-
Kalia v. Kalia
...and unexplained length of time under circumstances which are prejudicial to the opposing party. State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 352, 356, 686 N.E.2d 507. The elements of laches are (1) an unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) no excuse......
-
State ex rel. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ohio
...State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 17, 599 N.E.2d 261; State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 352, 356, 686 N.E.2d 507, 510-511 ("Eaton II "). Cf. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., supra (appeal of claim disallowance to co......