State ex rel. Clark v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
The issue presented is whether the commission abused its discretion when it decided at the June 30, 1992 PTD hearing to schedule a third psychological examination followed by another combined-effects review.1
The commission argues that R.C. 4123.53 empowers it to have a claimant examined to determine her right to workers’ compensation benefits and “does not limit the number of such examinations.”
Former R.C. 4123.53 (now R.C. 4123.53[A]) provided that “[a]ny employee claiming the right to receive compensation may be required by the industrial commission to submit himself for medical examination…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Copperweld Steel Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- State ex rel. Koonce v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Anderson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- State ex rel. Clark v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017