Ohio Court: No Permanent Partial and Total Disability Benefits for Same Claim

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that an injured worker may not receive permanent partial disability compensation when that worker is receiving permanent total disability payments for the same claim.

The Dec. 8 ruling came in State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., a case brought on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Sherry L. Redwine was injured at her job with Ohio Presbyterian Retirement Services Inc. (OPRS) in August 2003 and subsequently sought permanent total disability compensation for her injuries. Her claim allowed compensation for both psychological and physical injuries.

According to the Ohio Supreme Court’s slip opinion, the Ohio Industrial Commission found that “Redwine was unable to perform any sustained remunerative employment due solely to the medical impairment caused by the allowed psychological condition in her claim and awarded her [permanent total disability] benefits beginning July 12, 2010, to continue until her death.”

In August 2013, Redwine applied for permanent partial disability compensation based on her physical injuries that resulted from the same incident. Redwine conceded that she was not entitled to PPD for her psychological injuries because she was receiving PTD compensation for that condition, but asserted that she was entitled to PPD based on the physical injuries allowed in her claim.

Her application for PPD was initially denied by an Ohio Industrial Commission hearing officer based on the “lack of statutory authority for concurrent awards” and because both conditions stemmed from the same claim.

However, upon reconsideration, “a staff hearing officer concluded that a claimant is not barred from concurrent compensation for permanent partial disability if it is based on conditions that were not the basis for the prior finding of permanent total disability in the same claim.”

To reach that conclusion, “the hearing officer relied in part on the commission’s analysis of the same issue in claim No. 02-354357 involving a different injured worker.”

Redwine’s employer, OPRS, appealed the hearing officer’s reconsidered finding for Redwine, on the basis that there was no statutory authority for the commission’s decision. The appeals court, however, upheld the commission’s decision to allow PPD based on Redwine’s physical injuries.

The majority on the Ohio Supreme Court came to a different conclusion, finding there “is no authority for the commission to award an injured worker permanent-partial-disability compensation … when there has been a prior award of permanent-total-disability compensation … in the same claim.”

The Court recognized that in “certain limited instances, the General Assembly has provided for payment of concurrent awards.” However, the Court pointed out that the relevant statute does not contain a reference to concurrent benefit payments and concluded there was a “legislative intent to prohibit” them.

The decision of the court of appeals was reversed.

Not all justices agreed with the majority’s finding. In a dissenting opinion, Justice J. Pfeifer wrote that the Court had “sanctioned payment of concurrent permanent-partial-disability and permanent-total-disability benefits for various injured claimants in the past.” While the “statutory scheme … does not specifically allow concurrent benefits,” Pfeifer said that doesn’t mean “concurrent benefits are prohibited.”

Justice J. O’Neill joined Pfeifer in the dissenting opinion.

Topics Workers' Compensation Ohio