Legal Opinion

State ex rel. King v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1997No. 94-2658PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Two questions are presented for our review: (1) Did the 1986 amendment of R.C. 4123.57(A), (B) and (C) permit an award based on a percentage of permanent disability in addition to an award for a scheduled loss for the same injury, and (2) did the commission abuse its discretion in denying *254King PPD based on a physician’s opinion that King did not qualify for this compensation? For the reasons that follow, we find that King cannot recover under R.C. 4123.57(A) and (B), as amended, for the same condition and that the commission properly drew this conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm.

R.C.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. McLean v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State ex rel. GF Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State ex rel. Hammond v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Holman v. Longfellow RestaurantOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Maurer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. King v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API