Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Miller v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1994No. 93-2224PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Per curiam

Claimant had a very severe weight problem before her injury. It has worsened considerably since. Claimant’s doctor recommends — and the commission’s physician concurs — that claimant enter a supervised weight-loss program. Claimant now asks the commission to authorize and pay for that treatment. Two questions arise: (1) Is the additional allowance of “obesity” a prerequisite for such authorization? and (2) Does the weight-loss treatment recommendation preclude a finding of maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) and thus the denial of temporary total disability compensation? For the reasons to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Dent v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Campbell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1971

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. George v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor LinesNebraska Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State ex rel. Griffith v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Simmons v. Comfort Suites HotelCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  5. State ex rel. Jackson Tube Services, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2003

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API