State ex rel. Frazier v. Conrad
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The court of appeals found that because Frazier had qualified for PTD, in part, based on his functional illiteracy, he continued to qualify for this compensation, even though he was physically capable of the labor-intensive duties required to install siding. We disagree and, accordingly, reverse.
In 1989, Frazier alleged that he was permanently and totally disabled because he could no longer perform duties requiring more than sedentary work due to his industrial injury. Frazier also maintained that (1) his employment experience had been entirely in the labor field as a truck driver or auto…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Yancey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Midmark Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Alesci v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Alesci v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Campbell v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (9-11-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003
- State Ex Rel. Menough v. Industrial Comm., Unpublished Decision (6-25-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
- State ex rel. Frazier v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.