Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Osborne v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1995No. 93-2366PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

R.C. 4123.57(B) establishes a compensation schedule for claimants who sustain the “loss” of an enumerated body part. “Loss” is not confined to amputation. A “total and permanent loss of use” also constitutes a compensable “loss.” State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 402, 12 O.O.3d 347, 390 N.E.2d 1190, syllabus. Claimant argues that ankylosis, as a matter of law, constitutes “loss of use,” and entitles her to R.C. 4123.57(B) compensation. Evidently, claimant’s position rests on the following statutory passage:

“For ankylosis (total stiffness of) or contractures (due to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Walker v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Osborne v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Miller v. Armstrong Air ConditioningOhio Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API