Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Yance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1992No. 90-2347PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Two questions are presented: Should the cause be returned to the commission for: (1) consideration of the effect of claimant’s retirement? and (2) additional explanation pursuant to State, ex rel. Noll, v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245? For the reasons to follow, the cause is returned for further consideration.

State, ex rel. Chrysler Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 193, 580 N.E.2d 1082, recently declared that voluntary retirement precludes receipt of permanent total disability benefits. In this case, the circumstances precipitating claimant’s retirement…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Galion Manufacturing Division v. HaygoodOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus.Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Reliance Electric Co. v. WrightOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Basu v. BroganCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
  5. Cosner v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993

4 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