On November 26, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court held in State ex rel. Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 2024-Ohio-551S, a claimant must be employed to be eligible to receive temporary total disability compensation (“TTD”), overturning the lower court decision which allowed for TTD even when claimant had no wages to replace. If you have an Ohio claim where claimant was granted TTD at a hearing even though the claimant did not have a job to return to, either because he or she was terminated, quit or retired, and that hearing took place after March 2, 2023, contact an attorney at Bugbee C Conkle, LLP to discuss filing a motion for continuing jurisdiction. See our November 2024 Edition of the Comp Connection here for more information on the case.
Subsequent PTD Applications Require New and Changed Circumstances
In State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine’s Towing Inc., 2024-Ohio-5713 the Ohio Supreme Court offered clarification about R.C. 4123.58(G) effective September 28, 2021, which provides a claimant must provide evidence of new and changed circumstances before the Industrial Commission may consider a subsequent application for a permanent total disability (“PTD”) award. In Prinkey, the claimant was injured in 2015. His first PTD application was denied in 2019. In 2021, the Industrial Commission denied the second PTD attempt finding no new and changed circumstances under R.C. 4123.58(G) to justify consideration of the application. The claimant then filed a Mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals arguing the commission erred in determining the worsening of his mental condition was not a new and changed circumstance. The 10th District Court of Appeals granted a limited writ of mandamus and ordered the commission to state the evidence it relied upon and explain its reasoning. The claimant then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which affirmed the Appellate Court ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court held the commission is charged with weighing the evidence and is free to find a medical report submitted with a PTD application is not evidence of new and changed circumstances, but the Staff Hearing Officer (“SHO”) must explain which evidence it relied on and its reasoning pursuant to Noll v. Indus. Comm. 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991). The SHO failed to cite which evidence it relied on or explain why the medical reports were not evidence of new and changed circumstances. Because the SHO failed to satisfy the requirements under Noll, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals decision, granted a limited writ of mandamus, and returned the matter to the commission for clarification.
Ohio BWC Proposes Premium Rate Cut for Private Employers
Ohio’s private employers may see a decrease in their premiums starting July 1, 2025. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation proposed a 6% rate reduction to the agency’s Board of Directors. The proposed 6% rate cut represents an average statewide premium change. The actual change in employers’ premiums depends on numerous factors. We will know more when the board votes on the rate reduction at their February 28th meeting.
The Ohio Supreme Court Holds Claimant Can Seek Appellate Attorney Fees
When an employer files an appeal of the allowance of a claim into common pleas court, R.C. 4123.512(F) requires the employer to pay claimant’s attorney fees of up to $5,000.00 when the claimant prevails on appeal. Typically, the motion for fees is filed in the common pleas court after it has reached its decision. However, in Shields v. Bureau of Workers Compensation, 2024-Ohio-5743, the employer lost its appeal in the common pleas court after a jury trial and the claim was allowed but claimant failed to move for statutory attorney fees. The employer filed an appeal in the 8th District Court of Appeals and the employer’s appeal was denied. Claimant filed its motion for fees following the appellate court decision asking for fees in excess of $26,000.00. The appellate court granted the request but remanded the matter back to the trial court to determine what the fees should be. The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the appellate court decision and found claimant is entitled to attorney fees but declined to address the $5,000 statutory cap on attorney fees. The court held although it may be a better practice to request attorney fees while in the common pleas court, there is no time limit which prevents it from being filed in the appellate court.