Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. George v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 2011No. 10AP-310Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBryant, Presiding Judge

{¶ 18} Being unable to fully agree with the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent, in part.

{¶ 19} Initially, I agree with the majority’s disposition of the second objection to the magistrate’s decision. Although relator’s tests and treatment may have been delayed when BP disputed relator’s claim for right knee sprain, that delay does not in itself entitle relator to temporary total disability compensation.

{¶ 20} I, however, disagree with the majority’s resolution of the first and third objections. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate’s decision, the medical reports of Dr. Bohl are…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Bradley v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Bradley v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Simon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API