On November 18, 2025, Attorneys Robert L. Solt IV and Emma Renius presented at the Lima/Allen County Chamber of Commerce’s legislative forum. The purpose of the forum was to discuss improvements to workers’ compensation and employment law in Ohio. Robert L. Solt, IV, was interviewed by the local news as part of the event.
Associate attorneys Deborah Bensch and Emma Renius attended the Ohio Industrial Commission Statewide Hearing Officer Meeting on November 3, 2025 in Columbus, Ohio where they heard discussions about ethical conduct, Industrial Commission updates, AI usage for independent medical examinations, and recent case law. It was announced that the Lima Hearing Office remains closed awaiting security updates.
Revised Code 4123.52 Continuing Jurisdiction update
R.C. 4123.52 provides a claim is statutorily dead five years from the last date of medical service rendered, compensation payment, or date of death. R.C. 4123.52 was updated effective September 26, 2025 and now allows the commission or administrator, regardless of the date of injury or last payment of compensation or benefits, to authorize the purchase, repair, or replacement of a prosthetic device if necessary due to an amputation or loss that resulted from an allowed claim, even if the claim would otherwise be considered statutorily dead. Ohio Admin. Code 4123-6-39, which provides payment for prosthetics are covered by the surplus fund and not charged to state funded or self-insured employers, remains unchanged.
Ohio Supreme Court clarifies standard of review on mandamus actions involving VSSR awards.
In State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm., 2025–Ohio-4720 decided October 16, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court held courts are not obligated to defer to the Industrial Commission’s legal interpretation of specific safety requirements. In Berry, claimant sustained an industrial injury while installing a new water line under a road while working in a trench. A section of asphalt detached from the trench and struck him. Following the allowance of the claim, the claimant filed an application for a Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement award (“VSSR”), alleging violation of three safety requirements including Adm. Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) which requires the employer to sheet pile or shore the side of excavation when power shovels or other heavy objects are placed on a level above or near the excavation. The Commission found because the large excavator did not meet the Wikipedia definition of power shovel, it did not trigger application of the rule’s requirement the side of the excavation need be shored. The claimant filed an original action requesting a writ of mandamus directing the commission to vacate the SHO order and grant his VSSR application.
The matter ultimately went up to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court acknowledged courts had previously given judicial deference to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations interpreting specific safety requirements. The court clarified the Industrial Commission is the finder of fact and courts must accept their factual findings as final. However, the court is not obligated to defer to the Industrial Commission’s legal interpretations of safety laws or administrative rules. If the text of the requirement is clear, courts should apply it as written. If the text is ambiguous, courts may consider the Industrial Commission’s interpretation only as persuasive.
In Berry, the Court found that the Industrial Commission through its Staff Hearing Officer misinterpreted Adm. Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) because even if the excavator was not a “power shovel”, it may still have been a heavy object for purposes of the rule. Because the Staff Hearing Officer failed to determine if the large excavator could be characterized as an other “heavy object”, the Court granted a limited writ to determine whether the large excavator triggered application of Adm. Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7), and if so whether the employer violated the rule, and whether the violation proximately caused claimant’s injuries.
Permanent Total Disability Compensation Memo Update
Updated Industrial Commission Memo G3, effective October 30, 2025 provides if all the permanent total disability compensation reports state claimant is unable to return to sustained remunerative employment as a result of the allowed conditions in the claim (including the employer’s report if applicable) the Industrial Commission may issue a tentative order granting permanent total disability compensation. If an objection is filed, the Industrial Commission will hold a hearing. The Staff Hearing Officer must first determine if permanent total disability is inappropriate due to a “colorable legal issue that would preclude the granting of permanent total disability”. If the answer is affirmative, the parties will proceed to a hearing on the merits. (The prior memo did not allow for an immediate hearing on the merits.) If the hearing officer finds the tentative order was inappropriate because relevant medical evidence was not considered, the order will be vacated and the matter referred to the Hearing Administrator for further processing. If there is no colorable legal issue the order will be affirmed.