Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Haylett v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1999No. 1998-0675PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the MCO program. Haylett argues that the MCO program violates Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution because it is an improper delegation of authority to a private entity. We disagree. She also argues that MCOs violate due process when they terminate a claimant’s medical treatment without providing prior notice and a prior hearing. We agree that the MCO program as currently administered can lead to deprivations of due process. However, based on the facts of this case, we determine that Haylett was not deprived of due process.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. State ex rel. Keenan v. CalabreseOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State ex rel. Ruessman v. FlanaganOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State Ex Rel. Crabtree v. Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Northwestern Ohio Building & Construction Trades Council v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Tam v. Kaiser PermanenteHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State ex rel. Haylett v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' CompOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. In re KisterOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

14 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