Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Jones v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1996No. 94-1715PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

The narrow question before us is whether the language of Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(B)(2)(d) precludes the termination of TTD upon the finding of an RBR that the claimant has been offered a suitable job.

R.C. 4123.56(A) establishes the conditions for payment of Jones’s TTD:

“ * * * Payments shall continue pending the determination of the matter, however payment shall not be made for the period when * * * work within the physical capabilities of the employee is made available by the employer or another employer, or when the employee has reached the maximum medical improvement. * * * ” (Emphasis…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. DeMint v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State ex rel. Peabody Coal Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Hackenburg v. Indus. Comm., 06ap-938 (8-16-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. State ex rel. Jones v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State ex rel. Jones v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API