Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Brinkman v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1999No. 97-2142PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Two periods of wage loss are at issue: October 15,1994 through July 20, 1995, and July 21, 1995 through August 20, 1996. For the reasons to follow, the court finds that the commission abused its discretion in denying wage-loss compensation over both periods.

Despite the laudable goals of wage-loss compensation, there is a heightened potential for abuse whenever weekly compensation and wages are concurrently permitted. In response to this susceptibility, certain post-injury employment is more carefully scrutinized. Among these are part-time and self-employment. Described generically as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. MorseOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Ooten v. Siegel Interior Specialists Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Stahl v. Southeastern X-RayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Timken Co. v. KovachOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State ex rel. Brinkman v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Yates v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State ex rel. Yates v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State ex rel. Ameen v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2003

11 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