 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Williams v. Cincinnati Country Club9/30/1998
[Cite as State ex rel. Williams v. Cincinnati Country Club (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Workers' compensation - Industrial Commission's denial of temporary total disability compensation not an abuse of discretion, when - Approval of a weight-loss program does not preclude a finding of maximum medical improvement.
Submitted June 9, 1998
Appellant-claimant David Williams's 1978 workers' compensation claim was allowed for several low back conditions. Claimant's physical condition prior to his industrial injury is unknown. However, in March 1991, an examining physician listed claimant's height and weight at 5'5-3/4" and 285 pounds.
Claimant's weight prompted attending physician Richard B. Budde to send a letter to appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio in March 1992. That letter stated:
"This patient's low back problem is made worse by the fact that he is overweight. I believe it would be helpful to him to get into a weight reduction program and suggested to him to go to the Good Samaritan Hospital for this treatment. * * *"
One month later, Dr. Kenneth R. Hanington indicated in his report that claimant "has reached maximum medical improvement, as he is not a candidate for further surgery, due to his size." In August of that year, claimant successfully moved the commission for approval of a hospital-supervised weight-loss program.
On March 23, 1993, claimant moved the commission for temporary total disability compensation ("TTD") from August 26, 1992 and to continue, based on Dr. Budde's March 2, 1993 report. That report stated:
"The patient continues to experience disabling lower back symptoms. He does have multiple disc protrusions in the low back, particularly the last 3 discs. I believe that he could possibly be helped some time in the future by re-exploratory surgery and a fusion, but at the present time, due to his excessive weight, it would not be advisable. I believe the he would need to loose a significant amount of weight in order to benefit from any such surgery."
A district hearing officer denied TTD on August 27, 1993, stating:
"The claimant's motion filed requesting Temporary Total Disability Compensation beginning 8-26-92 based on claimant's future acceptance and attendance in a weight loss program is denied. The District Hearing Officer does not find a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a period of Temporary Total Disability Compensation. * * *
"This order is based upon the medical report(s) of Dr. Hannington , Dr. Budde[,] the evidence in the file and the evidence adduced at hearing."
A staff hearing officer affirmed the DHO's order.
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying TTD. The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
In State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 229, 232, 643 N.E.2d 113, 115-116, we held that approval of a weight-loss program was appropriate only where the "weight loss geared towards improving the allowed industrial conditions, improvement must be curative and not merely palliative. * * * It is not enough that weight loss decreases pain associated with the allowed conditions; weight loss must actually improve those conditions."
Miller also ruled that as to TTD, "a recommended weight-reduction program may or may not be consistent with the concept of MMI." Id. at 235, 643 N.E.2d at 118. In this case, the commission found that approval of a weight-los
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|