Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Tracy

666 N.E.2d 1140, 76 Ohio St. 3d 1201
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 24, 1996·No. No. 95-2447·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under Kempf Surgical Appliances, Inc. v. Tracy, we grant Maxxim’s motion to remand this matter to the BTA for it to rule on whether the equipment supplements impaired functions of the human body or aids human perambulation. We note that Maxxim had conceded that this equipment does not support weakened or non-functioning parts of the human body.

Furthermore, we reserve judgment on whether R.C. 4121.44(F) relieves Maxxim from collecting the sales tax when the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation pays for the equipment for Maxxim’s customers.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Tracy, 666 N.E.2d 1140, 76 Ohio St. 3d 1201 (Ohio 1996).

666 N.E.2d 1140 (Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Tracy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Tracy
1999 Ohio 136 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
Maxxim Med., Inc. v. Tracy
1999 Ohio 136 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)