State News : Ohio

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.