State ex rel. Osborne v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Osborne v. Industrial Commission

647 N.E.2d 798, 72 Ohio St. 3d 104

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 1995

DocketNo. 93-2366

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 647 N.E.2d 798 (State ex rel. Osborne v. Industrial Commission) 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. Osborne v. Industrial Commission, 647 N.E.2d 798, 72 Ohio St. 3d 104 (Ohio 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

R.C. 4123.57(B) establishes a compensation schedule for claimants who sustain the “loss” of an enumerated body part. “Loss” is not confined to amputation. A “total and permanent loss of use” also constitutes a compensable “loss.” State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 402, 12 O.O.3d 347, 390 N.E.2d 1190, syllabus. Claimant argues that ankylosis, as a matter of law, constitutes “loss of use,” and entitles her to R.C. 4123.57(B) compensation. Evidently, claimant’s position rests on the following statutory passage:

“For ankylosis (total stiffness of) or contractures (due to scars or injuries) which makes any of the fingers, thumbs, or parts of either useless, the same number of weeks apply to the members or parts thereof as given for the loss thereof.”

Claimant’s theory disregards the express parameters of the cited paragraph. The provision speaks exclusively to fingers and thumbs, not toes — the body part currently at issue. No equivalent directive accompanies R.C. 4123.57(B)’s discussion of toe loss. This led the appellate court to properly conclude:

[106]*106“It is clear that the legislature intended to treat ankylosis of the toes differently from ankylosis of the fingers. The same, moreover, is a reasonable distinction given the different functions of the referenced digits.”

Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

R.C. 4123.57(B) establishes a compensation schedule for claimants who sustain the “loss” of an enumerated body part. “Loss” is not confined to amputation. A “total and permanent loss of use” also constitutes a compensable “loss.” State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 402, 12 O.O.3d 347, 390 N.E.2d 1190, syllabus. Claimant argues that ankylosis, as a matter of law, constitutes “loss of use,” and entitles her to R.C. 4123.57(B) compensation. Evidently, claimant’s position rests on the following statutory passage:

“For ankylosis (total stiffness of) or contractures (due to scars or injuries) which makes any of the fingers, thumbs, or parts of either useless, the same number of weeks apply to the members or parts thereof as given for the loss thereof.”

Claimant’s theory disregards the express parameters of the cited paragraph. The provision speaks exclusively to fingers and thumbs, not toes — the body part currently at issue. No equivalent directive accompanies R.C. 4123.57(B)’s discussion of toe loss. This led the appellate court to properly conclude:

[106]*106“It is clear that the legislature intended to treat ankylosis of the toes differently from ankylosis of the fingers. The same, moreover, is a reasonable distinction given the different functions of the referenced digits.”

Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 N.E.2d 798, 72 Ohio St. 3d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-osborne-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack