Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. | ||
| 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. Ross v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences2024Relying on R.C. 4123.56(A), the court in Russell concluded that “the appropriate date on which to terminate disputed TTD compensation on the basis of maximum medical improvement is the date of the termination hearing, and the commission may not declare an overpayment for payments received by the claimant before that date.” Id. {¶ 13} Initially, by its terms, the relevant part of R.C. 4123.56(A) is limited to “the case of a self-insuring employer.” Dillon’s case does not involve a self- insuring employer. 2024Relying on R.C. 4123.56(A), the court in Russell concluded that “the appropriate date on which to terminate disputed TTD compensation on the basis of maximum medical improvement is the date of the termination hearing, and the commission may not declare an overpayment for payments received by the claimant before that date.” Id. {¶ 13} Initially, by its terms, the relevant part of R.C. 4123.56(A) is limited to “the case of a self-insuring employer.” Dillon’s case does not involve a self- insuring employer. | 5 | 1998–2024 |
State ex rel. Russell v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2003In Russell, the court held as follows: {¶ 40} "The appropriate date on which to terminate disputed temporary total disability compensation on the basis of maximum medical improvement is the date of the termination hearing, and the commission may not declare an overpayment for payments received by the claimant before that date." Id. at syllabus. {¶ 41} This court has held that Russell only applies to an ongoing award of TTD compensation which is subsequently terminated and does not apply to a motion re-questing the commencement of TTD compensation. 1999Comm. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 516 , 696 N.E.2d 1069 , at syllabus: “The appropriate date on which to terminate disputed temporary total disability compensation on the basis of maximum medical improvement is the date of the termination hearing, and the commission may not declare an overpayment for payments received by the claimant before that date.” Accordingly, we affirm that part of the court of appeals’ judgment that finds “some evidence” supporting the commission’s termination of TTD. | 5 | 1998–2003 |
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.