Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The STATE ex rel. HOUP, Appellant, v. TRANSPERSONNEL, INC.; Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
Per Curiam. Claimant contests the commission's denial of TTD. The court of appeals upheld that denial and we affirm that decision.
A finding of maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) precludes TTD. State ex rel. Peabody Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 639, 641, 614 N.E.2d 1044, 1045; 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. Contrary to claimant's representation, commission authorization of a weight-loss program does not preclude a finding of MMI. State ex rel. Williams v. Cincinnati Country Club (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 284, 699 N.E.2d 505.
We further find that claimant has failed to sustain his burden of showing a causal relationship between his alleged inability to return to his former position of employment and his allowed conditions. C-84s from Dr. Rison attribute claimant's disability in part to a nonallowed degenerative disc disease. Dr. Schmitz-in a C-84 devoid of any subjective or objective findings-attributed the claimant's disability simply to “back pain.” Given Dr. Schmitz's reference in his 1991 report to nonallowed upper back pain, the commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to assume-as claimant wishes-that the term “back pain” necessarily referred to claimant's spondylolisthesis.
Accordingly, the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying TTD, and the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 97-1868.
Decided: August 25, 1999
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)