Skip to main content

State ex rel. Lunsford v. Indus. Comm.

OhioOctober 17, 2001No. 2001-0015
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Industrial Commission of Ohio prevailed in its refusal to adjust the claimant's average weekly wage retroactively beyond the two-year period preceding her recalculation motion. The Supreme Court affirmed that retroactive compensation adjustment is limited to the two years prior to the motion date.

Excerpt

Workers' compensation—Retroactive compensation adjustment following an average weekly wage recalculation is limited to the two years prior to the claimant's recalculation motion.

What This Ruling Means

**Ohio Court Limits How Far Back Workers Can Recalculate Compensation** This case involved a worker who asked Ohio's Industrial Commission to recalculate her average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. She wanted the new, higher wage calculation applied to benefits she had received years earlier, which would have meant getting additional back payments. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the worker, supporting the Industrial Commission's decision. The court confirmed that when a worker successfully gets their average weekly wage recalculated for workers' compensation, any retroactive adjustments to past benefit payments are limited to only the two years before they filed their request for recalculation. The worker could not recover additional compensation for periods beyond those two years, even if her wage calculation was incorrect during that earlier time. This ruling matters because it puts a clear time limit on how far back workers can collect adjusted compensation payments. If you believe your workers' compensation benefits were calculated using the wrong wage amount, you should act quickly to request a recalculation. Waiting too long could mean losing out on back payments you might be entitled to receive.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon (Slip Opinion)
OhioSep 2020

Workers' compensation—Whether a claimant has voluntarily retired or has abandoned the workforce is a question of fact for the Industrial Commission to determine—A court must uphold a factual determination by the commission so long as it is supported by some evidence in the record, regardless of whether evidence supporting a contrary conclusion also exists, even if the contrary evidence is greater in quality or quantity—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

Defendant Win
Hamon
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 2019

Under State ex rel. McKee v. Union Metal Corp., 150 Ohio St.3d 223, 2017-Ohio-5541, ¶ 9-11, the commission's order denying permanent total disability compensation was supported by some evidence in the record showing that relator voluntarily abandoned the workforce and was therefore not eligible for benefits. As a result, relator was not entitled to relief in mandamus. Id. at ¶ 11. Objections sustained writ denied.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Pritt v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2018

Because some evidence in the record supports the commission finding relator is medically capable of engaging in sustained remunerative employment of a sedentary nature and the relevant nonmedical disability factors do not preclude relator from currently engaging in such employment, the fact that the commission incorrectly relied on relator's non-allowed conditions as a basis for denying PTD in a separate portion of the order does not constitute grounds for the granting of a writ of mandamus. Writ denied.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.