Workers’ Compensation Cases

Deborah Bain ("Employee") worked for UTI Integrated Logistics LLC ("Employer") as a shuttle truck driver. She sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder and right wrist in August 2010 and entered into a settlement agreement with Employer. After returning to work, she suffered an injury to her left shoulder in January 2013. The trial court found that Employee is not permanently and totally disabled, that the 1.5 times cap applies for purposes of both reconsideration of the August 2010 injury and assessment of the January 2013 injury, that she has a 6% medical impairment rating for the January 2013 injury, and that Employer is not responsible for expenses related to treatment she sought on her own. Employee has appealed these rulings. Employer has appealed the trial court's award of further temporary total disability benefits. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Claimant is a firefighter for the City and County of Denver (the City). In July 2013, he was diagnosed with cancer, and on July 24, 2013, he advised the City of his cancer diagnosis and asserted his belief that the melanoma was related to or caused by his work as a City firefighter. Claimant filed an application for hearing on October 6, 2017, seeking medical and temporary total disability benefits. The City admitted compensability, but asserted a statute of limitations defense, arguing that the claim was barred because claimant filed his application more than four years after learning of his melanoma and reporting it to the City. A panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) agreed with the City, and the claim was dismissed as time barred. On appeal, claimant contended that the Panel misinterpreted the applicable statute of limitations, CRS § 8-43-103(2). He argued that the City had adequate notice of his intent to pursue compensation through the Division of Workers' Compensation's (Division) assignment of a claim number to the case, the City's filing of certain forms, and his filing of several documents. CRS § 8-43-103(2) requires a claimant seeking workers' compensation to file a "notice claiming compensation" within two years of discovering the work-related nature of the claimant's injuries, or within three years if the claimant can establish a reasonable excuse for late filing and the employer suffered no prejudice as a result. The Division's assignment of a claim number does not satisfy a claimant's obligation to notify the Division and the employer of his or her intent to seek compensation, and none of the documents claimant points to specifies that claimant was seeking compensation as that term is defined in CRS § 8-43-103. Based on claimant's admission that he knew in 2013 that his firefighting duties may have caused his melanoma, he needed to file his claim by 2015 to comply with the two-year statute of limitations, or by 2016 if he could establis

We deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus compelling the Industrial Commission to vacate its order granting respondent's request for TTD. Respondent did not voluntarily abandon his employment by violating a written policy Relator did not follow its own policies regarding drug testing.

Under State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading, Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78, 2018-Ohio-3890 and on the record of the case, the magistrate correctly reasoned that relator failed to demonstrate the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying his request for temporary total disability (TTD) compensation based on the finding that relator had retired from his employer for reasons unrelated to the allowed conditions in his claim. Objection overruled and writ of mandamus denied.

Bureau of Workers' Compensation appeals trial court's decision finding injured worker entitled to participate in compensation fund. Worker was company president. Company provided mobile commercial tire changing services. President injured while traveling to breakfast meeting with company employee, commercial tire changer. At meeting, president intended to direct the employee to work at apartments owned by president's separate company. Trial court affirmed where president's injury was received in the course of and arose out of employment. Evidence indicated tire changing business was slow and president was travelling to meet with the employee for morale-boosting breakfast with hope that tire service call would occur. If no call occurred, president intended to direct the employee to work at the apartments. Retaining highly-skilled employees by ensuring full-time wages was a benefit to the tire changing business when business increased in the spring and summer.

The magistrate did not err in finding that the Industrial Commission of Ohio did not abuse its discretion in not requiring the claimant to comply with employer relator's request for a global medical release from the claimant based on her filing an application for permanent total disability compensation. Objections overruled writ of mandamus denied.

Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant's PTD application where the medical opinion relied on by the commission provided some evidence to support the commission's finding that claimant is incapable of sustained remunerative employment solely due to the allowed impairment. Because claimant was medically incapable of sustained remunerative employment due to the allowed impairment, the commission was not required to consider non-medical disability factors before granting PTD, including claimant's lack of participation in re-education and retraining. Writ denied.

District court judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance order denying workplace injury benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Mandamus denied relator's refusal to subject himself to an examination by his employer's physician does not constitute good cause under R.C. 4123.65(C).

A claim for workers' compensation benefits must be filed within one year after the injury. The date of injury for purposes of determining whether a claim for benefits is timely filed is the first date a reasonable lay person, not learned in medicine, knew or should have known that he suffered a compensable work-related injury and has either lost wages or received medical treatment.

A claim for workers' compensation benefits must be filed within one year after the injury. The date of injury for purposes of determining whether a claim for benefits is timely filed is the first date a reasonable lay person, not learned in medicine, knew or should have known that he suffered a compensable work-related injury and has either lost wages or received medical treatment.

Workers' compensation—When a claimant voluntarily removes himself from his former position of employment for reasons unrelated to a workplace injury, the claimant is no longer eligible for temporary-total-disability compensation, even if the claimant remains disabled at the time of his separation from employment—State ex rel. Reitter Stucco, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. and State ex rel. OmniSource Corp. v. Indus. Comm. overruled.

The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment for Appellees on Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in an assault. Appellant did not receive his injuries "in the course of" his employment, and the injuries did not "arise out of" his employment. While the assault occurred in the employee parking lot, it occurred outside working hours, was committed by a non-employee, and was the result of an entirely personal dispute. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court's determination that claimant did not meet his burden to establish that he had asbestosis for workers' compensation claim affirmed.

Workers' Compensation, law of the case doctrine, disability determination

Workers compensation: trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient for appellate court to conduct review trial court did not err in admitting testimony competent and credible evidence supports judgment of the trial court.

Trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellant's employer and the Administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation on the basis of res judicata was improper where one of appellant's prior workers' compensation claims was vacated prior to adjudication and a question of fact exists as to whether the other prior claim involved the same injury alleged in the present claim.

Trial court erred by granting directed verdict in favor of employer on claim for lumbar radiculitis. Although testimony from claimant's medical expert was equivocal on whether lumbar radiculitis was a pain symptom of another condition or an independent condition, it was not proper to weigh the credibility of various portions of the medical expert's testimony in ruling on a motion for directed verdict. Because portions of the medical expert's testimony constituted some evidence of substantive probative value, reasonable minds could not reach only one conclusion in favor of the employer.