14 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Bradley v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2016Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 239 (1997). {¶ 28} While it is undisputed that "chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy" is a non- allowed condition, Bradley tells us that the mere presence of this non-allowed condition does not, in itself, destroy the compensability of the claim. {¶ 29} Here, the allowed conditions in the claim identified by Dr. Krahe in his December 20, 2014 C-9 can be independently causing a need for a TENS unit while the non-allowed rotator cuff condition also benefits from the TENS unit. {¶ 30} Given the above analysis, the magistrate concludes that the C-9 request itself provides the som 2016Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 239 (1997), citing its decision in Waddle, the court stated that the mere presence of a non-allowed condition in a claim does not itself destroy the compensability of the claim, but the claimant must meet his or her burden of showing that an allowed condition independently caused the disability. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Waddle v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2007Id. {¶ 89} The mere presence of a nonallowed condition in a claim for compensation does not in itself destroy the compensability of the claim, but the claimant must meet his burden of showing that an allowed condition independently caused the disability. 2007Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 452 . {¶ 36} The mere presence of a nonallowed condition in a claim for compensation does not in itself destroy the compensability of the claim, but the claimant must meet his burden of showing that one or more allowed conditions of the claim produces PTD independently of any nonallowed conditions. | 7 | 2003–2007 |
State Ex Rel. Haylett v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
green
2 sentences2001While the BWC determines the compensability of a claim, the MCO works ‘in conjunction with the employer, employee, attending physician, and the [BWC to] seek a course of medical or rehabilitative treatment that promotes a safe return to work.’ ” Haylett, 87 Ohio St.3d at 329 , 720 N.E.2d at 905, citing Ohio Adm.Code 4123-6-043(B). 2001While the BWC 2 January Term, 2001 determines the compensability of a claim, the MCO works ‘in conjunction with the employer, employee, attending physician, and the [BWC to] seek a course of medical or rehabilitative treatment that promotes a safe return to work.’ “ Haylett, 87 Ohio St.3d at 329 , 720 N.E.2d at 905, citing Ohio Adm.Code 4123-6-043(B). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.