Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Druggan v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1999No. 96-2395PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

One question is before us: Did the commission abuse its discretion in ordering claimant to submit to a medical examination on the issue of ongoing TENS treatment? Upon review, we find that it did not.

R.C. 4123.651(A) states:

“The employer of a claimant who is injured or disabled in the course of his employment may require, without the approval of the administrator or the industrial commission, that the claimant be examined by a physician of the employer’s choice one time upon any issue asserted by the employee or a physician of the employee’s choice or which is to be considered by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. Smothers v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Stevens v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State ex rel. Druggan v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Saia v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2024
  4. State v. Kenner Products, Unpublished Decision (9-9-1999)Ohio Court of Appeals · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API