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.