State ex rel. Eldridge v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio

• Decision Date: 24 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-1030,86-1030
• Citation: 519 N.E.2d 650,35 Ohio St.3d 189
• Parties: The STATE, ex rel. ELDRIDGE, Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 189

35 Ohio St.3d 189

519 N.E.2d 650

The STATE, ex rel. ELDRIDGE, Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellants.

No. 86-1030.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 24, 1988.

On October 31, 1978, appellee, Wilma J. Eldridge, sustained an injury to her low back in the course of her employment with Central Aluminum Company. Appellee timely filed a workers' compensation claim which was recognized for "severe back strain." Pursuant to this finding, appellee was awarded temporary total disability compensation and, as of November 1983, had received over two hundred weeks of such compensation.

Throughout this period, appellee sought regular medical attention and was hospitalized for recurring back problems. Appellee's back condition did not respond to treatment primarily due to severe obesity which not only aggravated her condition, but also prevented her from being considered a good candidate for surgery. Appellee was able to return to her former employment for approximately one year after receiving chemical injections in Canada, but her low back discomfort eventually returned and forced her to leave work.

On July 2, 1981, appellee sought assistance from the Rehabilitation Division of the Industrial Commission. The division initially recommended that she participate in the weight-loss program provided at Mt. Carmel Hospital Nutritional Center. Her treating physician, Dr. Bruce E. Siegel, speculated that a weight loss of one hundred thirty to one hundred forty pounds could eliminate the need for spinal surgery. However, appellee missed several scheduled appointments due to illness and her continuing back condition.

In January 1982, appellee entered into an amended plan with the Rehabilitation Division in which she agreed to participate in a Pain and Stress Management Program offered at Miami Valley Hospital. Again, appellee's low back condition prevented her from participating in this program, and after a series of cancelled appointments, appellee and the Rehabilitation Division agreed that her file should be closed.

On November 1, 1983, Dr. Drew J. Arnold examined relator to determine if her disability had become permanent and concluded that she suffered from a "low degree of impairment" which was "probably approaching a permanent situation."

On January 13, 1984, a hearing was held to determine the extent of relator's disability. The staff hearing officer scheduled appellee for an examination to determine whether the temporary disability had become permanent. On March 21, 1984, appellee was examined by Dr. Martin K. Moyes who concluded as follows:

"In my opinion, the claimant is not substantially able to perform her job duties as a saw operator. The claimant is temporarily permanently [sic ] unable to return to her former position of employment. State of impairment is mild, low back pain with L4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus.

"In my opinion, the present impairment is due to the injury, with a definite percentage--low moderate--of 25 to 40%, injury to her back and radicular damage to her left lower extremity. It is felt she has reached maximum recovery after this period of time. The alleged injury was on 10/31/78, but the patient may possibly be able to receive vocational rehabilitation since she does have a high school education and could possibly be placed in another type of position, with which she may gainfully be employed."

On May 29, 1984, a second hearing was held to determine the extent of appellee's disability. On August 2, 1984, the hearing officer terminated appellee's receipt of temporary total disability compensation on the grounds that Dr. Moyes' examination indicated that the claimant had reached maximum recovery after this period of time. The hearing officer stated that Dr. Moyes' report constituted evidence "that the level of disability has become permanent (at least the inability to perform her prior job duties)." The hearing officer further indicated that during the hearing, appellee was given thirty days in which to submit a narrative report of her treating physician, Dr. Siegel, but no such report had been received as of June 18, 1984.

On July 14, 1984, Dr. Siegel stated, in a letter filed with the commission, that appellee's condition had not completely stabilized, that her condition was not...