Industrial Comm. v. Betleyoun
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtWashburn, J.
While, in a proper sense, a disease is an injury, and in some states is held to be such under the Workmen.’s Compensation law, that is not true in Ohio. Here we have two classes of claims that are compensable, — one growing out of ijnury, and the other out of disease; and it is settled in Ohio that the term “injury,” as used in the Workmen’s Compensation law, does not include occupational diseases or diseases other than occupational diseases. (Industrial Comm. v. Cross, 104 OS. 561.)
The present Workmen’s Compensation law of Ohio does not classify heart disease as an occupational disease, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Renkel v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1923
- Industrial Commission v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1928
3Cited by6 opinions
- Duncan v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Crawford v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
- Industrial Commission v. HolmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Paxton v. Spicer Manufacturing Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1933
- Esmonde v. Lima Locomotive Works, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.