Ohio Supreme Court Requires Industrial Commission to Address Employers’ Defenses in Permanent Total Disability Applications

In the case of Sheppard v. Industrial Commission, (2014), 139 Ohio St.3d 229, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Industrial Commission must address all legal issues raised by the employer in the defense of an application for permanent total disability benefits. In particular, the employer in the Sheppard case had raised the issue of whether the claimant’s alleged disability was the result of an intervening injury. The claimant suffered a serious back injury at work in 1997. However, the claimant was reinjured in 2002 in a non-work related incident. The employer raised the issue of whether the intervening injury was the cause of the claimant’s inability to return to work. The Hearing Officer granted the application but failed to discuss the issue of the intervening injury. The employer then sought reconsideration. The commission granted the request for reconsideration but rejected the argument concerning an intervening injury. Interestingly, the commission then went on to deny the application for permanent total disability benefits after reviewing new medical evidence submitted by the employer. The claimant then filed a mandamus action seeking to vacate the commission’s denial of his benefits.

In denying the claimant any relief, the Supreme Court emphasized that the commission must address all legal defenses raised by an employer at a permanent total disability hearing. The Supreme Court ruled that the commission acted lawfully when it granted the employer’s request for reconsideration. There was sufficient evidence of the intervening injury itself and the treatment claimant had received for that injury to warrant consideration of the defense. Also, once the prior order had been vacated, the commission had the authority to reconsider all of the medical evidence as well.

Employers defending a permanent total disability application should consider all possible defenses. In particular, issues of voluntary abandonment and potential intervening incidents should be reviewed. More importantly, those issues should be raised at the hearing. The Sheppard case guarantees that they will be considered and that the Hearing Officer must address those defenses before awarding any benefits.