Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 95-901PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Kroger challenges the award of temporary total disability compensation from July 18,1991 to January 1, 1994, and gives two reasons why it should be set aside. Neither has merit.

Kroger’s first argument asserts that claimant has reached permanency/maximum medical improvement (“MMI”), a finding of which bars temporary total disability compensation. R.C. 4123.56(A); State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O.3d 518, 433 N.E.2d 586; Vulcan Materials Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 31, 25 OBR 26, 494 N.E.2d 1125. Kroger initially claims that the return-to-work…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Tyson v. TysonWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State ex rel. Copeland Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rose v. Indus. Comm., 06ap-529 (4-17-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State Ex Rel. Sunoco v. Robey Indus. Comm., 06ap-361 (9-20-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Hettinger v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

1 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