Legal Opinion

State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1932No. 23367PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The relator in this case was injured October 11, 1926. On October 29, 1926, he filed his claim with the commission. He was allowed compensation for temporary total disability. On March 21, 1927, an operation was performed upon the relator and his eye was removed. The condition requiring such operation, relator claims, was due to his injury of October 11, 1926.

Thereafter, on April 24, 1927, he filed an application for further compensation, asking for permanent partial disability for the loss of the eye. Upon hearing, the commission held, under date of July 11, 1928, "that no permanent partial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1932
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Neiswander v. BricknerOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1932
  5. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Zavatsky v. StringerOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Humphries v. Wheeling Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Dobson v. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  5. State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937

3 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