Skip to main content

State ex rel. Cribbs v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Ct. App.July 16, 2019No. 17AP-661
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Brunner
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Writ of mandamus denied; magistrate's decision adopted on appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court affirmed the Industrial Commission of Ohio's decision to suspend consideration of injured worker's claim where the worker failed to show good cause for refusing mental/behavioral health testing ordered by the employer's doctor.

Excerpt

Magistrate's decision adopted. The magistrate appropriately found that the Industrial Commission of Ohio did not abuse its discretion in suspending further consideration of injured worker's claim under R.C. 4123.651, where injured worker had failed to show good cause for refusing mental/behavioral health testing by his employer's doctor. Writ of mandamus denied.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** An injured worker filed for workers' compensation benefits with the Industrial Commission of Ohio. As part of the claims process, the employer's doctor ordered the worker to undergo mental and behavioral health testing. The worker refused to take these tests and did not provide a good reason for refusing. In response, the Industrial Commission suspended consideration of the worker's compensation claim. The worker challenged this decision in court, arguing the commission was wrong to halt his claim. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the Industrial Commission of Ohio. The court found that the commission acted appropriately when it suspended the worker's claim because he failed to show good cause for refusing the required mental health testing. The court denied the worker's request to force the commission to continue processing his claim. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that workers pursuing compensation claims may be required to undergo medical or psychological evaluations ordered by their employer's doctors. If workers refuse these tests without a valid reason, they risk having their claims suspended or delayed. Workers should understand that cooperation with reasonable medical examinations is typically required in the workers' compensation process, and refusing could jeopardize their benefits.

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
Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026
Defendant Win
Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.
Ohio Ct. App.May 2026
Plaintiff 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.