Hanley v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

{¶ 32} I respectfully disagree with the majority’s interpretation of R96-1-01 as read in conjunction with R.C. 4123.68(Y). Specifically, I do not view appellant’s failure to comply with R96-1-01 to be the same as a refusal to submit to a medical examination pursuant to R.C. 4123.68(Y).

{¶ 33} Ohio workers’ compensation statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. State ex rel. Riter v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 89, 742 N.E.2d 615, Mullins v. Whiteway Mfg. Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 18, 15 OBR 15, 471 N.E.2d 1383. R.C. 4121.13(E) empowers the Administrator to adopt…