State ex rel. Hillside Dairy Co. v. Conrad

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hillside Dairy Co. v. Conrad

703 N.E.2d 798, 84 Ohio St. 3d 314

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 97-1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 703 N.E.2d 798 (State ex rel. Hillside Dairy Co. v. Conrad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Hillside Dairy Co. v. Conrad, 703 N.E.2d 798, 84 Ohio St. 3d 314 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Contrary to relator’s representation, there is “some evidence” that claimant’s temporary total disability from September 12, 1989 through March 8, 1992 was caused by the claim’s allowed conditions alone. Dr. William Kay’s March 24, 1997 report specifically attributed claimant’s temporary total disability solely to claimant’s allowed conditions. Recoupment of this payment is, therefore, a moot question.

No one .contests relator’s right to recover for medical expénses paid for “traumatic iritis left eye” and “strain and/or myofascitis of the lumbar area”— conditions that were ultimately disallowed by the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. At issue is the statute governing relator’s recovery — former R.C. 4123.515 or 4123.511(J). Pursuant to our recent decision in State ex rel. Roadway Express v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 510, 696 N.E.2d 1064, we find that relator’s recovery rights are controlled by former R.C. 4123.515.

A writ of mandamus directing the commission to vacate its award of TTD compensation is denied. A writ of procedendo directing respondent Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to determine the amount of Surplus Fund reimbursement for medical expenses to which relator is entitled is granted.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

Contrary to relator’s representation, there is “some evidence” that claimant’s temporary total disability from September 12, 1989 through March 8, 1992 was caused by the claim’s allowed conditions alone. Dr. William Kay’s March 24, 1997 report specifically attributed claimant’s temporary total disability solely to claimant’s allowed conditions. Recoupment of this payment is, therefore, a moot question.

No one .contests relator’s right to recover for medical expénses paid for “traumatic iritis left eye” and “strain and/or myofascitis of the lumbar area”— conditions that were ultimately disallowed by the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. At issue is the statute governing relator’s recovery — former R.C. 4123.515 or 4123.511(J). Pursuant to our recent decision in State ex rel. Roadway Express v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 510, 696 N.E.2d 1064, we find that relator’s recovery rights are controlled by former R.C. 4123.515.

A writ of mandamus directing the commission to vacate its award of TTD compensation is denied. A writ of procedendo directing respondent Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to determine the amount of Surplus Fund reimbursement for medical expenses to which relator is entitled is granted.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 N.E.2d 798, 84 Ohio St. 3d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hillside-dairy-co-v-conrad-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack