Ohio Supreme Court Addresses Burden to Establish Partial Loss of Sight in Workers’ Compensation Claim

In a recent decision, the Ohio Supreme Court confirmed that expert medical evidence is required to support an application for an award under ORC 4123.57(B) for partial loss of sight.  State ex rel. Beyer v. Autoneum North America, et al., 2019-Ohio-3714 (decided September 17, 2019).  The Court ruled that it is not enough for a claimant to show the pre and post injury visual acuity of the claimant. There must be an opinion of a medical expert that establishes the percentage of vision actually lost.

In the Beyer case, the claimant sought relief under ORC 4123.57 for the permanent loss of sight in his right eye. The Industrial Commission initially denied his request because he did not have medical evidence establishing the percentage of vision loss. However, the Court of Appeals from the Tenth District granted Mr. Beyer’s request for a writ of mandamus and ordered the Commission to vacate its decision and grant Mr. Beyer the requested award. The court concluded that the claimant had properly applied a table found in the AMA guidelines showing the claimant’s pre-injury and post-injury visual acuity. The court ruled that the Commission should have compared the numbers and awarded the difference.

In reversing the decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that when establishing the percentage of vision actually lost as a result of the injury, it is necessary to have the opinion of a physician to determine the amount of impairment. The Commission itself could not render that opinion without specific medical evidence supporting its finding of impairment. The court ruled that the Commission lacks the medical expertise to make this determination.

The court also made sure that it distinguished the issue of determining the claimant’s impairment versus determining the claimant’s disability arising from an injury. Disability is a legal term indicating the effect of the medical impairment on the claimant’s ability to work. Therefore, the court avoided any application of this decision to awards for permanent partial disability. The Commission will regularly arrive at a number for a permanent partial disability award under ORC. 4123.57 that falls between the impairment findings from doctors for the Bureau, the employer, or the claimant. While some would argue that medical evidence should be required when determining the level of disability, the court obviously does not agree. This decision actually helps solidify the Commission’s current approach to dealing with applications for permanent partial disability.

Therefore, in the future when dealing with applications that involve determinations of impairment, such as partial loss of vision, medical evidence must be presented by the claimant that measures the actual amount of vision lost. It is not enough to merely compare measurements of the amount of vision in the particular eye that was injured prior to and after the injury.