State ex rel. Nutt v. Cincinnati
Decision Date | 19 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-1900,93-1900 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. NUTT, Appellant, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI; Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying further prescription payment. The appellate court denied the writ. This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Kondritzer, Gold, Frank & Crowley Co., L.P.A., and Lane N. Cohen, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., and William J. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Former R.C. 4123.651(A) stated:
"Any employee who is injured or disabled in the course of his employment shall have free choice to select a licensed physician as he may desire to have serve him, as well as medical, surgical, nursing, and hospital services and attention * * *."
Because this section guarantees a free choice of physicians, claimant argues that the commission must approve and pay, without question, any treatment authorized by that doctor. We disagree.
Former R.C. 4121.121(P) provided:
Former R.C. 4121.44 provided:
Finally, former R.C. 4123.66 directed:
"In addition to the compensation provided for in this chapter, the administrator of workers' compensation shall disburse and pay from the state insurance fund the amounts for medical, nurse, and hospital services and medicine as he deems proper * * *." (Emphasis added.)
These statutes clearly empowered the commission and bureau to oversee claim expenditures made to health-care providers. This authority was validated in State ex rel. Campbell v. Indus. Comm. (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 154, 57 O.O.2d 397, 277 N.E.2d 219. There, we upheld the commission's decision to limit the claimant to one chiropractic treatment per month, writing:
"In lodging authority in the claimant to select his physician and medical services, the General Assembly also granted broad discretion to the Industrial Commission to approve or disapprove the cost of such services." (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 156-157, 57 O.O.2d at 398, 277 N.E.2d at 221.
Campbell was followed by State ex rel. Breno v. Indus. Comm. (1973), 34...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri
-
Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Conrad
...Act historically required the commission and bureau to perform as part of their administrative duties. See State ex rel. Nutt v. Cincinnati (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 594, 639 N.E.2d 1196; State ex rel. Breno v. Indus. Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 227, 63 O.O.2d 378, 298 N.E.2d 150; State ex rel.......
-
State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm.
...State ex rel. Campbell v. Indus. Comm. (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 154, 57 O.O.2d 397, 277 N.E.2d 219; State ex rel. Nutt v. Cincinnati (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 594, 639 N.E.2d 1196. Campbell has been interpreted as articulating a three-pronged test for the authorization of medical services: (1) are......
-
State ex rel. Navistar Internatl. Transp. Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 2005 Ohio 3284 (OH 6/28/2005)
...balance the necessity of treatment against the cost to the employer, relator cites Campbell and Breno, as well as State ex rel. Nutt v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 594. In Campbell, the claimant sought approval for chiropractic treatments. The Supreme Court held that the commission d......