State News : Ohio

NWCDN Ohio State Law Update – February 2026

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Update

BWC Actions

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Unveils New Substance Use and Prevention Recovery Program

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) Board of Directors is considering an additional 1% reduction of Ohio workers’ compensation rates, potentially saving Ohio’s private employers nearly $10 million in premiums. If approved by the BWC Board, this would mark the eighth consecutive rate reduction under the current Administration and the 17th decrease in the past 18 years, continuing a long-standing trend of lowering costs for Ohio businesses.

The BWC Board will vote on the proposal at its Feb. 27 meeting. If approved, the new rate would take effect July 1. “We remain focused on keeping premiums low for Ohio’s employers,” said BWC Administrator/CEO Stephanie McCloud. “Today, the average rate levels for Ohio’s 245,000 private and public employers are at their lowest point in more than 65 years."

The proposed 1% rate cut represents an average statewide premium change, including administrative costs. The actual premium paid by individual private employers depends on several factors, including the expected future claims costs in their industry, their company’s recent claims history, and their participation in various BWC programs.

State Marijuana Law Repeal Effort Targets New Laws, Employers Brace for Changes

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has cleared the way for a campaign to repeal a new law tightening the state’s marijuana and hemp regulations. Yost certified the title and summary of a revised referendum petition challenging Senate Bill 56, allowing supporters to begin collecting signatures to put the issue before voters. The law is scheduled to take effect in March.

Passed by lawmakers in December, the measure restricts most intoxicating hemp products and adds penalties for certain marijuana conduct that voters legalized in 2023. Manufacturers said evolving cannabis policy creates added complications for workplace safety and drug rules.

Ohio Judicial Actions and Decisions

Challenge to Ohio Industrial Commission Authority

Lawsuits filed in Franklin County, Ohio are challenging whether Ohio’s workers’ compensation appeals judges meet legal qualifications, raising questions about how the state’s system for resolving disputes is administered.

The suits argue that the three members of the Ohio Industrial Commission, which hears appeals of BWC decisions, do not meet a statutory requirement for six years of recognized expertise in workers’ compensation law. Attorneys for injured workers say that could affect the legal standing of past rulings. Supporters of the commissioners maintain the officials are qualified and that the lawsuits are aimed at reversing unfavorable decisions.

Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR)

State ex rel. Berry v. Ohio Industrial Commission, 2025-Ohio-4720 (October 16, 2025)

In State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial Commission, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that courts are not required to defer to the Industrial Commission’s interpretations of Ohio’s specific safety requirements. Courts must instead independently interpret them, particularly when the language is clear.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that courts should not merely defer to the Industrial Commission’s legal interpretations of the state’s specific safety requirements when reviewing whether an employer violated them. The court somewhat aligned itself with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark case, Loper Bright, which directed federal courts to independently interpret ambiguous statutes rather than rely on agency interpretations, as we have previously reported. But unlike the Loper Bright decision, which generally benefited employers dealing with federal agencies, the Berry decision could have the opposite effect when their injured employees accuse them of violating the state’s specific safety requirements. Ohio’s specific safety requirements are similar to OSHA’s safety standards, and Ohio employers are generally subject to both.

The Berry case stemmed from an employee’s applying for a VSSR award against his employer in the Industrial Commission. Generally, when an employee applies for a VSSR award, the BWC conducts an investigation, after which the Industrial Commission conducts a hearing to determine if the employer violated one or more of the specific safety requirements identified by the employee and whether any such violation contributed to the employee’s injuries. Although Ohio law requires the Industrial Commission to interpret the state’s workers’ compensation laws in favor of employees, that is not true for VSSR proceedings, where the benefit of any ambiguity of a rule would typically be interpreted in favor of the employer. Because of that, the Industrial Commission typically interprets the state’s specific safety requirements in a way that benefits employers in VSSR proceedings. That is what happened in the Berry case.

In a mandamus proceeding, which is similar to an appeal, brought by the employee after the Industrial Commission denied his application for a VSSR award, the 10th District Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that the Industrial Commission erred in denying the employee’s VSSR application and found the Industrial Commission’s interpretation of its own safety rules no longer warranted judicial deference. Two of the three appellate judges went further, holding that the Industrial Commission should find in favor of the employee and award him compensation.

In Berry, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that courts are not required to defer to the Industrial Commission’s legal interpretations of the specific safety requirements, particularly when the requirements’ language is clear. However, it found that the Court of Appeals went too far in ordering an award, emphasizing that determining whether a violation occurred and caused an injury involves factual questions—a power reserved exclusively for the Industrial Commission. The court issued a limited writ of mandamus, like an order, directing the Industrial Commission to revisit the case and resolve the factual issues it had previously bypassed but considering the interpretation of the specific safety requirements at issue, as determined by the Court of Appeals.

Although the Industrial Commission may not interpret the state’s specific safety requirements any differently than it had, employers should expect that their employees will likely take the position at the Industrial Commission and in the courts afterwards that the applicable safety requirements should be interpreted more broadly in favor of finding employer liability and an award. Employees will also have another argument to make at the Court of Appeals, now being able to argue that the Berry decision makes it incumbent on the Court of Appeals to interpret the specific safety requirements at issue and not simply rubber-stamp the Industrial Commission’s interpretation. The Berry case also signals that Ohio courts may be less inclined to defer to other administrative agencies, resulting in broader impacts beyond the workers’ compensation system. Employers should continue to monitor legal updates in this area.

Temporary Total Disability (TTD)

State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corporation, 2025-Ohio-5371 (December 3, 2025).

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of temporary total disability benefits to an injured worker who did not report for a light-duty assignment that two doctors said he could do.

In State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corp., Evangelo Papageorgiou, an employee of Avalotis injured his neck on the job in late May 2018 and underwent same-day surgery. On June 5, one of the surgeons who operated on him said he could do light-duty work with no heavy lifting. Later that month, an Avalotis project manager offered him a light-duty job that complied with the restriction on heavy lifting and instructed him to report the next day.

Mr. Papageorgiou’s treating physician reviewed the written job offer and agreed that Mr. Papageorgiou was capable of doing the work. Nevertheless, he did not show up for work. Avalotis stopped paying him and deemed his employment abandoned.

Mr. Papageorgiou sought temporary total disability benefits beginning the day after his injury. Avalotis opposed, arguing he was ineligible because he refused light-duty work. A district hearing officer granted TTD from June 28, 2018, based on Avalotis’ payment of wages in lieu of TTD benefits. A staff hearing officer, however, denied TTD after that date, concluding that Mr. Papageorgiou had voluntarily abandoned his job by rejecting the suitable position. After the Industrial Commission declined further review, Mr. Papageorgiou asked the 10th District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus granting TTD or ordering a new hearing. The appellate court declined his request.

The appellate court emphasized that Ohio law bars payment of TTD during any period in which work within an employee’s physical capabilities “is made available by the employer or another employer.” Avalotis made such work available, the court said, and both physicians — including Mr. Papageorgiou’s treating doctor — confirmed that the job fell within his medical restrictions. His failure to report constituted a refusal of suitable employment.

Because that evidence supported the commission’s conclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court rejected Mr. Papageorgiou’s argument that the staff hearing officer should have determined whether Avalotis made the offer in good faith. The court held that he had not properly raised the issue of employer good faith during the administrative process and, in any event, had not offered a meaningful argument or evidence on appeal showing bad faith. His only claim — that the offer contained a single stated restriction — was characterized by the court as a challenge to whether the job was “suitable,” not an indication of bad faith.

The court further noted that the hearing officer’s reference to “voluntary abandonment” was not central to the outcome. The core rationale, the court said, was that Avalotis provided work that met Mr. Papageorgiou’s physical restrictions and he refused it; therefore, he was not entitled to TTD benefits. The state high court rejected Mr. Papageorgiou’s suggestion that the job was “legally deficient” because it did not set forth the physical requirements for the light-duty position, noting that he cited no authority to support that contention.

© Copyright 2026 by Christopher Ward and Raymond Tarasuck Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

NWCDN Ohio State Law Update - October 2025

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Update

BWC Actions

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Unveils New Substance Use and Prevention Recovery Program

On July 16, 2025, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) unveiled its new Substance Use Prevention and Recovery Program (SUPR). The innovative SUPR Program brings together the Drug Free Safety Program (DFSP), DFSP Safety Grants, and the Substance Use Recovery and Workplace Safety Program (SUR) under one umbrella designed to focus on workplace use and misuse of drugs and alcohol.  The voluntary program is designed to assist State Funded Employers in effectively preventing workplace injuries by integrating drug free initiatives into their workplace safety programs. The program changes are effective as of July 1, 2025.

According to BWC Administrator/CEO Stephanie McCloud, “…[C]ombining the key pieces of our previous programs into one creates a better and more efficient experience for our customers. The Substance Use Prevention and Recovery Program is focused on helping Ohio’s business manage and prevent substance use in their workplaces.”

Basic eligibility requirements for State Funded Employers or Public Employer Taxing Districts to participate in the SUPR program include: 1) being current on all payments due to the BWC; 2) having an active policy status; 3) not having cumulative lapses in coverage in excess of 40 days within the preceding 12 months; and (4) reporting actual payroll for the preceding policy year with payment of any additional premiums that may be due.

The SUPR program offers Employers a choice of four participation options: 1) Advance Level; 2) Basic Level; 3) Comparable Program; and 4) SUPR Reimbursement, with Advance Level and Basic Level participants being eligible for 7% and 4% bonuses respectively based upon their premium payments. Basic Level participation requirements include accident analysis training; written drug free workplace policies; employee education requirements; supervisor testing; drug and alcohol testing; and employee assistance. The Advance Level participation requirements include all of the Basic Level requirements in addition to random drug testing, and employee support and employee retention requirements. Those that choose the Comparable level program will be required to have a drug free workplace policy; education requirements; supervisor training; and drug and alcohol testing, while the Reimbursement Level does not require any training, reporting or drug testing like the other levels. Despite your level of participation, all employers are eligible for reimbursement of certain costs incurred in the management and prevention of substance use issues in the workplace.

What are some of the changes in the new SUPR program? Most participants will now automatically be eligible for reimbursement grants. Employers with “second chance” policies are now eligible for reimbursement of substance use assessments, and year-round enrollment in the program is also available. Additionally, an online portal is being developed for Employers to report on program requirement completion and request reimbursement of activities all in one place. For a summary of the changes to the program please click here.

Ohio Judicial Decisions

Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR)

State ex rel. Prime Roof Solutions, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 2025-Ohio-4399 (September 23, 2025)

In a per curiam opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court, the 10^th District Court of Appeals decision was affirmed finding that some evidence in the record supported the Ohio Industrial Commission’s granting of the claimant’s VSSR petition and finding that the employer had failed to provide him with the required fall-protection gear. (See Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1) (requiring that fall-protection gear be provided to employees exposed to hazards of falling). The 10^th District found that the employer failed to establish that Industrial Commission failed to perform a legal duty or abused its discretion in granting claimant’s application for VSSR award for violation of Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1). The Court affirmed that some evidence supports commission’s finding that claimant was not assisting in installation of fall-protection system when he fell.

Permanent Total Disability (PTD)

State ex rel. Urban v. Wano Expediting, Inc., 2025-Ohio-3009 (August 29, 2025).

In another per curiam decision from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Court reversed the 10^th District Court of Appeals judgment and denied the writ of mandamus. The Ohio Industrial Commission had denied claimant’s application for PTD, finding that he retains the ability to perform sustained remunerative employment with limitations at a sedentary level. Claimant filed a complaint at the 10^th District seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to vacate its order and issue a new order. The 10^th District granted the writ, concluding that the Commission had failed to comply with Ohio Admin. Code 4121-3-34)D)(3)(i), an administrative rule under which it was required to consider claimant’s allowed psychological conditions in combination with his allowed physical conditions.

© Copyright 2025 by Christopher Ward and Raymond Tarasuck Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

NWCDN Ohio State Law Update - July 2025

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Update

BWC Actions

On February 28, 2025, the Board of the Ohio BWC announced and approved a 6% reduction in private employer premiums, set to take effect on July 1, 2025, saving businesses an expected $60 million. This reduction would be the sixth straight reduction since Governor DeWine took office and the 16^th rate decrease in the last 17 years going back to 2008.  Overall, the average rate levels for the 257,000 private and public Ohio employers are at their lowest in over 60 years.

The actual premium paid by individual private employers depends on several factors, including the expected future claims costs in their industry, their company’s recent claims history, and their participation in various BWC programs.

House Bill 80, the Industrial Commission and Proposed Ombuds Office Rename, and House Bill 81 for the Ohio BWC, were both approved by the Ohio General Assembly as of June 26, 2025. The Ohio Industrial Commission is responsible for providing a process for fair and impartial resolutions of disputed workers compensation claims, adjudicating 85,000 claims annually. Funded through the Administrative Cost Fund surcharge applied to employers’ workers compensation premiums, their request of $107.4 million over the biennium is the lowest budget since FY 2018-19. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation provides insurance coverage for Ohio business and employees, serving 258,000 public and private employers across the state. Funded by employer premiums, Ohio has the 5th lowest workers' compensation premiums in the nation.

Ohio Judicial Decisions

Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR)

State ex rel. Allen Industries Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 2024-Ohio-5992 (December 23, 2024)

On October 30, 2018, Lewis Lands was working as a sign installer for Allen Industries, Inc., at a Meijer store construction site in Fremont, Michigan. Lands and a coworker were installing a large steel sign, which required welding steel uprights to a pole that had been placed in a trench. While kneeling at ground level and welding near the edge of the trench, the soil beneath Lands gave way, causing him to fall headfirst into the seven-foot-deep trench. Lands was momentarily buried upside down and received an electrical shock from the welder lead until his coworker shut off the power and helped him out of the trench using a ladder.

Lands filed a workers’ compensation claim which was allowed for the following injuries: anterior cruciate ligament tear left knee; unspecified sprain of right wrist; strain of muscle, fascia and tendon at neck level; sprain of medial collateral ligament of left knee; contusion of left knee; contusion of left front wall of thorax, left chest; unspecified sprain of left shoulder joint left shoulder; pulmonary embolism bilateral; deep vein thrombosis vein; fracture scaphoid/navicular, right wrist; fracture scaphoid/navicular with non-union, right wrist; sprain left acromioclavicular joint; low back strain; herniated disc C5-C6; L4-5 disc displacement with left radiculopathy; L5-S1 central disc displacement; herniated disc C5-C6; substantial aggravation of pre-existing arthritis, right wrist, left shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

On September 14, 2020, Lands filed an application for additional award for a violation of a specific safety requirement under Ohio Adm. Code 4123:1-3-13(D)(1), which mandates trenches over five feet deep must be shored, sloped, or otherwise protected where employees may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins. The BWC’s Safety Violations Investigations Unit (SVIU) released a report on January 7, 2021, finding the trench was at least seven feet deep and lacked any shoring or bracing. Lands testified that he had raised concerns about the soil conditions but was instructed to continue working.

A Staff Hearing Officer (“SHO”) initially denied the VSSR application. In an order dated December 22, 2021, the SHO found sufficient evidence the soil was unstable but insufficient evidence to show Lands was working in the trench or whether the area where the ground gave way was the exposed face of the trench or an inclined earth surface.

Lands appealed, and on March 29, 2022, an SHO vacated the prior SHO order and set the application for VSSR award for a hearing. After the hearing, an SHO on April 18, 2023, granted the application for VSSR award, finding Ohio Amd. Code 4123:1- 3-13(D) applied and the site where Lands was injured constituted an excavation site because it was a manmade cavity and a trench due to its size. To address Allen Industries argument that Lands was not in the trench, the SHO specified he was reaching in the trench when the ground gave way, and Allen Industries’ not providing safety equipment was the proximate cause of Lands’s injuries.

Allen Industries filed a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals and argued the regulation did not apply because Lands was not working inside the trench, and that Michigan’s safety code (Mich. Amd. Code 408.40901) governed the worksite and only required protections when employees were required to enter a trench.

The Tenth District Court rejected both arguments. It held the plain language of Ohio Adm. Code 4123:1-3-13(D)(1) applies to any employee exposed to moving ground or cave-ins, not just those inside a trench. The Court emphasized that other subsections of the rule explicitly refer to employees “working within” trenches, but subsection (D)(1) does not. The rule broadly applies to employees who may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins and does not distinguish between those working inside the trench or those working at ground level near the trench. The court also found no irreconcilable conflict with Michigan law as Michigan’s rule only apples when employees are required to enter a trench while Ohio’s rule is more broadly applied. Because Lands was not required to enter the trench, both rules could be followed without conflict.

Loss of Use

State ex rel. Kreitzer v. Indus. Comm., 2025-Ohio-281 (January 30, 2025)

Rodney Kreitzer suffered a workplace eye injury in December of 1982 when a metal rod struck his right eye. His workers’ compensation claim was allowed for multiple conditions: contusion, visual loss, traumatic cataract, zonula dialysis, and traumatic mydriasis. In 1983, Kreitzer received a scheduled-loss award based on a finding of 28.5% uncorrected vision loss in the right eye.

In March 2008, Kreitzer filed a C-86 motion seeking an increase in the scheduled-loss award for his right eye. On April 29, 2008, he underwent surgery on his right eye, removing the lens, performed by Michael E. Snyder, M.D. On July 16, 2008, and at the request of the BWC, Kreitzer was examined by Richard Roebuck, M.D., who determined Kreitzer had 99% central vision loss in his right eye, but after adjusting for comparative vision, the injury caused a 34% uncorrected loss of vision. Based on this, the BWC issued an order granting an increased scheduled-loss award after finding a 33% uncorrected loss of vision, which Kreitzer did not appeal.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue of whether the surgical removal of an eye lens in the course of treatment for a workplace injury entitles a worker to compensation for a total loss of vision pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B) in State ex rel. Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, L.L.C., 129 Ohio St.3d 138, 2011-Ohio-2721. The Court declined to adopt a blanket rule that a claimant is automatically entitled to a total loss of vision award under R.C. 4123.57(B) whenever the natural lens or cornea is surgically removed due to workplace injury. Instead, the court held that it is proper to calculate the loss of vision based on the percentage of vision actually lost because of the injury but prior to any corrective surgery. The Court also clarified it was the loss of vision in Autozone and Parsec that formed the basis for the award of compensation for total loss of vision.

On March 15, 2022, Kreitzer filed another C-86 motion requesting an additional increase in his scheduled-loss award to reflect a total loss of vision in the right eye based on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decisions in Autozone and Parsec. In support of his motion, Kreitzer did not submit a new medical report but relied on the same 2008 surgical report from Dr. Snyder. The BWC referred the motion to the Industrial Commission and recommended denial, noting the lack of medical evidence of new and changed circumstances. On June 10, 2022, a District Hearing Officer (“DHO”) denied the motion, concluding it was barred because the issue had already been adjudicated in 2008. Kreitzer appealed.

Kreitzer’s appeal of the June 10, 2022 denial from the DHO proceeded to a hearing before a Staff Hearing Officer (“SHO”), who issued an order on August 3, 2022, vacating the DHO’s order and denying Kreitzer’s C-86 motion filed on March 15. The SHO found Kreitzer failed to meet his burden of proof because he did not submit any new medical evidence supporting an increase in the degree of vision loss. The SHO noted the doctor’s report from 2008 already considered the 2008 surgical findings, including the lens removal, and the previously awarded 33% vision loss remained appropriate.

Kreitzer filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus with the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing the Industrial Commission should have granted his motion for total loss based on the legal significance of the lens removal surgery and the 2008 order was legally incorrect under State ex rel. Autozone, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2008-Ohio-541, and State ex rel. Parsec v. Agin, 155 Ohio App.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-6186 (10^th Dist.).

The court rejected Kreitzer’s argument and denied the writ. The court found Kreitzer’s March 2022 motion, which was the only decision properly before the Commission and the court, did not raise any claims about legal error or request continuing jurisdiction. The court emphasized the Industrial Commission is not required to reopen old awards without new and changed medical evidence, and here, Kreitzer relied entirely on a report from 2008 that had already been considered. The court explained that Autozone and Parsec do not create a blanket rule that surgical removal of a lens requires a finding of total vision loss. Rather, such determinations depend on medical evidence showing the extent of vision loss attributable to the injury, measured before corrective surgery. The Court distinguished these cases from Kreitzer’s situation by clarifying the court in Parsec relied on a finding that the claimant had sustained a total loss of vision prior to surgery. In Autozone, the court specifically held a physician’s finding that claimant was legally blind supported a determination for total loss.

To establish a claim for award under RC. 4123.57 (B), Kreitzer needed to submit medical evidence showing the amount of vision loss. Because Kreitzer submitted no new evidence to demonstrate an increase in loss, he was not entitled to an increase in scheduled-loss compensation for total loss of vision. The Industrial Commission’s denial was supported and the court overruled Kreitzer's objections.

Temporary Total Compensation

State ex rel. Camp v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 2025-Ohio-464 (February 13, 2025)

On June 13, 2017, Adam Camp sustained a work-related injury while lifting a propane cylinder during his employment. His workers’ compensation claim was initially allowed for the following physical conditions: bilateral inguinal hernia without obstruction or gangrene, not current; post op seroma inguinal area; and mononeuropathy ilioinguinal left lower extremity. Camp was awarded temporary total disability compensation (“TTD”) starting on June 14, 2017, and underwent hernia surgery in July.

In May 2019, Gururau Sudarshan, M.D., filed two MEDCO-14 forms indicating Camp could return to work part-time with restrictions and was a candidate for vocational rehabilitation. On August 7, 2019, Paul T. Hogya, M.D., issued a report finding Camp had reached maximum medical improvement for the allowed conditions and could perform light-duty work with restrictions. Following this report, Camp’s employer filed a C-86 motion to terminate TTD which was heard before the Industrial Commission. A District Hearing Officer (“DHO”) issued an order terminating TTD, effective October 8, 2019. Camp did not return to work or participate in vocational rehabilitation following this determination.

On November 12, 2020, Camp filed a motion to amend his claim to include the psychological conditions of unspecified depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, following a report by Jennifer Stoeckel, Ph.D., who found Camp suffered from these conditions as a result of accident. The Commission allowed the additional conditions in October 2021. Dr. Stoeckel completed additional MEDCO-14 forms, certifying Camp’s inability to work due to the newly allowed conditions from November 2, 2020, through April 6, 2022. Camp subsequently filed a motion requesting TTD compensation for this period.

A DHO granted the request, finding the Camp was unable to work and suffering a wage loss as a direct result of the allowed psychological conditions. The DHO awarded TTD compensation from November 2, 2020, through March 23, 2022, and continuing with the submission of proof. Ferrellgas, Inc., appealed the decision, arguing Camp was not eligible for TTD because he had not been working prior to the onset of the psychological conditions and had failed to seek work or vocational rehabilitation after being found at MMI in 2019.

A Staff Hearing Officer (“SHO”) vacated the DHO’s order and denied TTD compensation. The SHO emphasized that Camp had not worked in any capacity since being found at MMI in 2019 and had not demonstrated that his failure to return to work or seek rehabilitation was due to the allowed conditions. The SHO concluded Camp’s wage loss beginning November 2, 2020, was due to his failure to return to the workforce, not the newly allowed conditions. The Commission refused further appeal and denied Camp’s request for reconsideration.

Camp filed a mandamus action, seeking an order compelling the Commission to award TTD compensation. He argued that under R.C. 4123.56(F), as amended in 2020, the Commission improperly applied the voluntary abandonment doctrine by focusing on his employment status prior to the onset of the psychological conditions. Camp relied on the Tenth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2023-Ohio-633, which held that R.C. 4123.56(F) focuses on whether the claimant is unable to work due to the allowed conditions during the claimed period, without regard to prior employment status.

The magistrate, relying on Autozone, focused on whether Camp was unable to work during the requested period of TTD compensation due to his allowed psychological conditions. The magistrate emphasized once Camp became medically unable to work due to those conditions, the reasons he had not been working prior to that point, such as his return to work after reaching MMI for his allowed physical conditions, were irrelevant. The magistrate concluded Camp’s inability to work was directly caused by his psychological conditions and recommended granting writ of mandamus to award TTD.

However, while Camp’s case was pending, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Autozone, clarifying that R.C. 4123.56(F) requires a claimant to show the inability to work is not only caused by the allowed conditions but also not due to reasons unrelated to the injury. The Court stated the inability to work must be directly caused by an impairment arising from an injury and not caused by reasons unrelated to the allowed injury. If an injured worker is not employed for reasons unrelated to their approved injury, the worker is not entitled to wage loss compensation, even if the injury later causes a new or additional disability.

Applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the Tenth District found that although Camp’s psychological conditions rendered him unable to work starting November, 2020, he had already been out of the workforce for over a year due to reasons unrelated to those conditions. The court concluded Camp’s wage loss was not a direct result of the allowed psychological conditions but rather his failure to return to work after reaching MMI for his physical injuries. Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus, holding Camp was not entitled to TTD compensation because his wage loss stemmed from reasons unrelated to the allowed conditions in the claim.

© Copyright 2025 by Christopher Ward and Raymond Tarasuck Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Update 

BWC Actions

The Board of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) met in January 2025to discuss another potential rate reduction for Ohio’s private employers. The proposed rate reduction would be 6% which would amount to almost $60 million less in premiums paid by Ohio private employers. It would apply to the next fiscal year effective July 1, 2025. If approved at the Board’s next meeting on February 28, 2025, this reduction would be the sixth straight reduction since Governor DeWine took office and the 16th rate decrease in the last 17 years going back to 2008.  Overall, the average rate levels for the 257,000 private and public Ohio employers are at their lowest in over 60 years.

The proposed 6% rate cut represents an average statewide premium change, including administrative costs. The actual premium paid by individual private employers depends on several factors, including the expected future claims costs in their industry, their company’s recent claims history, and their participation in various BWC programs.

Ohio Judicial Decisions

Temporary Total Compensation 

State ex rel. Ohio State Univ. v. Pratt, 169 Ohio St.3d 527, 2022-Ohio-4111, 206 N.E.3d 708

On June 20, 2017, the claimant, a food and beverage manager for OSU at the Blackwell Inn, submitted her two-week notice, to resign on July 5, 2017. She had an offer of employment from a different employer. Four days later, on June 24, 2017, the claimant sustained a trip and fall injury. The claimant’s claim was allowed, and she underwent surgeries on June 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, and was paid TTD compensation. The employer moved to terminate TTD. The commission’s SHO determined TTD was payable because the claimant did not voluntarily abandon the workforce as she was leaving her position at OSU for another position. The commission voted not to exercise continuing jurisdiction, but, in the dissent, one commissioner asserted the majority misinterpreted and misapplied State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 1446, 2018-Ohio-3890, 119 N.E.3d 386, by evaluating whether the claimant intended to abandon the workforce instead of whether the claimant intended to abandon her former position of employment.

The Court of Appeals granted the employer’s requested writ of mandamus and ordered the commission to vacate the award of TTD after July 5, 2017. The commission’s order was issued after the decision in Klein but before the effective date of the amendment to R.C. 4123.56(F). The Court found that, under Klein, the commission is to consider only whether the claimant has voluntarily abandoned her former position of employment and not whether she has removed herself from the workforce generally.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and found that the commission did not abuse its discretion by determining that, but for the injury, the claimant would have remained in the workforce. The Supreme Court explained that while Klein referenced whether the claimant “voluntarily removes himself from his former position of employment,” the analysis was specific to the facts of the case and that “Klein’s abandonment of his former position was therefore equivalent to abandonment of the workforce during the period for which he sought TTD compensation.” Thus, the Supreme Court concluded, “The question is whether those circumstances demonstrate a voluntary abandonment of the workforce – permanent or temporary – such that the injured worker’s wage loss is not the result of the work injury. In other words, do the circumstances indicate that the injured worker would be working – somewhere – but for the injury?”

 Permanent Partial Disability

State ex rel. Hobbs v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 22AP-308, 2023-Ohio-1759

Tenth District Court of Appeals found the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the claimant’s application for another increase in his percentage of permanent partial disability under R.C. 4123.57(A). The commission found the request was not supported with “substantial evidence of new and changed circumstances developing since the time of the hearing on the original or last determination,” as required by R.C. 4123.57(A). The record did not show the clamant underwent any medical treatment since 2002, that his condition became disabling following his last treatment, or that the claim was amended to include an additional medical condition, nor does the record support employee's contention that he testified that his medical condition was worsening since no such testimony appears in the record. The Tenth District Court of Appeals found the claimant failed to meet the burden in mandamus to demonstrate a clear right to relief, and denied the claimant’s requested writ of mandamus. Following this decision, the claimant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which is currently pending.

Scheduled Loss

State ex rel. Harris v. Indus. Comm., Supreme Court of Ohio, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3081. The claimant sustained a head injury that impacted his vision. The commission denied his motion for scheduled loss of vision compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B), relying on a physician’s medical opinion that the claimant’s vision impairment was not due to an actual injury to the eyes. The Tenth District Court of Appeals found the commission did not abuse its discretion and denied the requested writ, finding there was some evidence in the record that established the claimant’s loss of vision was not attributable to damage to the structure or function of the claimant’s eye, but was due to the loss of brain function. R.C. 4123.57(B) did not authorize loss of use compensation when the loss of brain function was the cause of the vision loss rather than actual damage to the eye structure itself. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and denied the writ of mandamus, albeit on different grounds. The Supreme Court determined the commission’s order, which was based upon “the absence of a credible assessment” of loss of vision, was based upon some evidence. The Supreme Court declined to address the Smith case, finding the commission’s order did not deny compensation in reliance upon that case.

Substantial Aggravation of a Preexisting Condition

Dunn v. Devco Holdings, Inc., 3d Dist. Union No. 14-22-18, 2023-Ohio-680

The claimant suffered a workplace injury to her hip, and she later filed for additional psychological conditions in her workers’ compensation claim. The commission additionally allowed the claim for “substantial aggravation of persistent depressive disorder, with anxious distress, late onset, with persistent major depressive disorder, moderate.” The employer appealed to common pleas court under R.C. 4123.512. The trial court found in favor of the claimant, finding the testimony of Dr. Black to be persuasive in that her diagnosis is based upon objective diagnostic findings, objective clinical findings, or objective test results as required by R.C. 4123.01(C), and that the psychiatric condition arose from the injury.

The employer appealed, arguing the claimant did not present evidence of objective diagnostic findings, objective clinical findings, or objective test results that demonstrated a substantial aggravation of her psychological condition. Specifically, the employer argued the MMPI-2 test that Dr. Black had administered to the claimant is not an objective test and did not show substantial aggravation. The Third District Court of Appeals found Dr. Black testified at trial that the MMPI-2 is a standardized objective test. It gives you the idea of the person’s personality characteristics and helps with your diagnosis formulation. It has 567 true and false questions and the responses are combined together and scored to give you kind of a concrete and quantifiable results. She added that the MMPI-2 was developed out of standardized testing and provides a concrete and quantifiable result. She explained that although the person’s answers are subjective, the actual results and scoring of it makes it objective. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the Dr. Black’s testimony showed that the MMPI-2 test provided objective results, and her testimony that the claimant’s injury substantially aggravated a pre-existing condition was based on objective findings, as required by R.C. 4123.01(C).

© Copyright 2025 by Christopher Ward and Raymond Tarasuck Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.