(A) In cases of permanent total disability, the employee shall receive an award to continue until the employee's death in the amount of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the employee's average weekly wage, but, except as otherwise provided in division (B) of this section, not more than a maximum amount of weekly compensation which is equal to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the statewide average weekly wage as defined in division (C) of section 4123.62 of the Revised Code in effect on the date of injury or on the date the disability due to the occupational disease begins, nor not less than a minimum amount of weekly compensation which is equal to fifty per cent of the statewide average weekly wage as defined in division (C) of section 4123.62 of the Revised Code in effect on the date of injury or on the date the disability due to the occupational disease begins, unless the employee's average weekly wage is less than fifty per cent of the statewide average weekly wage at the time of the injury, in which event the employee shall receive compensation in an amount equal to the employee's average weekly wage.
(B) In the event the weekly workers' compensation amount when combined with disability benefits received pursuant to the Social Security Act is less than the statewide average weekly wage as defined in division (C) of section 4123.62 of the Revised Code, then the maximum amount of weekly compensation shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in division (C) of section 4123.62 of the Revised Code. At any time that social security disability benefits terminate or are reduced, the workers' compensation award shall be recomputed to pay the maximum amount permitted under this division.
(C) Permanent total disability shall be compensated according to this section only when at least one of the following applies to the claimant:
(1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts;
(2) The impairment resulting from the employee's injury or occupational disease prevents the employee from engaging in sustained remunerative employment utilizing the employment skills that the employee has or may reasonably be expected to develop.
(D) Permanent total disability shall not be compensated when the reason the employee is unable to engage in sustained remunerative employment is due to any of the following reasons, whether individually or in combination:
(1) Impairments of the employee that are not the result of an allowed injury or occupational disease;
(2) Solely the employee's age or aging;
(3) The employee retired or otherwise is not working for reasons unrelated to the allowed injury or occupational disease.
(4) The employee has not engaged in educational or rehabilitative efforts to enhance the employee's employability, unless such efforts are determined to be in vain.
(E) Compensation payable under this section for permanent total disability is in addition to benefits payable under division (B) of section 4123.57 of the Revised Code.
(F) If an employee is awarded compensation for permanent total disability under this section because the employee sustained a traumatic brain injury, the employee is entitled to that compensation regardless of the employee's employment in a sheltered workshop subsequent to the award, on the condition that the employee does not receive income, compensation, or remuneration from that employment in excess of two thousand dollars in any calendar quarter. As used in this division, "sheltered workshop" means a state agency or nonprofit organization established to carry out a program of rehabilitation for individuals with disabilities or to provide these individuals with remunerative employment or other occupational rehabilitating activity.
(G) If the industrial commission has adjudicated a claimant's application for compensation payable under this section for permanent total disability and issued a final order denying compensation for that application, the claimant shall present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application filed by the claimant for compensation under this section for the same injury or occupational disease identified in the previous application.
The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1137, 239 N.E.3d 1049. · cites it 66ד58 governs compensation for PTD, allowing compensation only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one…”
State ex rel. Parrish v. Walter Randolph, 2024-Ohio-1135, 239 N.E.3d 1023. · cites it 60ד22AP-134 16 (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts; (2) The impairment…”
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-5713, 253 N.E.3d 100. · cites it 28ד{¶ 8} While Prinkey’s second request for PTD compensation was pending before the commission, the General Assembly amended R.C. 4123.58, the statute governing PTD compensation.”
State ex rel. Kincaid v. Allen Refractories Co., 114 Ohio St. 3d 129 (2007). · cites it 12ד” {¶ 14} R.C. 4123.58 controls permanent total disability compensation and at section (C) states: {¶ 15} “The loss or loss of use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or any two thereof, constitutes total and permanent disability, to be…”
State ex rel. Holdridge v. Indus. Comm'n, 228 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 16ד81 of the General Code of Ohio, effective at the time of relator’s injury, and, second, Section 4123.58 of the Be-vised Code which is the amended re-enactment of the first statute.”
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 631 N.E.2d 138 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 7ד57(A) (partial disability), and (3) PTD (R.C. 4123.58). Prior to Chrysler Corp., however, this court’s decisions regarding the first two classifications of disability reflected a recognition that, since each category of compensable disability is sui generis, the effect of…”
State ex rel. Adams v. Aluchem, Inc., 821 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 46ד{¶ 21} “(1) In all claims where the evidence on file clearly demonstrates actual physical loss, or the permanent and total loss of use occurring at the time of injury secondary to a traumatic spinal cord injury or head injury, of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both…”
State ex rel. Davis v. Indus. Comm., 2025-Ohio-5152. · cites it 41ד) The magistrate found that because R.C. 4123.58 requires only that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability, the commission held Davis to a heightened…”
State ex rel. Bosch v. Indus. Comm'n, 438 N.E.2d 415 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 7ד2d 157], in which “loss” as used in R.C. 4123.58 was held to include “[t]otal and permanent paralysis of the body from the waist down * * This interpretation of R.”
State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 623 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 6ד56 deals with temporary total disability compensation, while R.C. 4123.58 concerns compensation for permanent total disability.”
State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm., 2002-Ohio-6664, 97 Ohio St. 3d 418. · cites it 7ד57(B) and permanent total disability compensation under R.C. 4123.58 on the same claim—State ex rel.”
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 631 N.E.2d 138 (Ohio 1994). “57(A) (partial disability), and (3) PTD (R.C. 4123.58). Prior to Chrysler Corp., however, this court’s decisions regarding the first two classifications of disability reflected a recognition that, since each category of compensable disability is sui generis, the effect of…”
State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm'n, 623 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio 1993). “56 deals with temporary total disability compensation, while R.C. 4123.58 concerns compensation for permanent total disability.”
State ex rel. Kincaid v. Allen Refractories Co., 114 Ohio St. 3d 129 (2007). “” {¶ 14} R.C. 4123.58 controls permanent total disability compensation and at section (C) states: {¶ 15} “The loss or loss of use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or any two thereof, constitutes total and permanent disability, to be…”
State ex rel. Adams v. Aluchem, Inc., 821 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio 2004). “{¶ 21} “(1) In all claims where the evidence on file clearly demonstrates actual physical loss, or the permanent and total loss of use occurring at the time of injury secondary to a traumatic spinal cord injury or head injury, of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both…”
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1137, 239 N.E.3d 1049. “58 governs compensation for PTD, allowing compensation only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one…”
State ex rel. Parrish v. Walter Randolph, 2024-Ohio-1135, 239 N.E.3d 1023. “22AP-134 16 (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts; (2) The impairment…”
State ex rel. Davis v. Indus. Comm., 2025-Ohio-5152. “) The magistrate found that because R.C. 4123.58 requires only that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability, the commission held Davis to a heightened…”
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1137, 239 N.E.3d 1049. “58 governs compensation for PTD, allowing compensation only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one…”
State ex rel. Parrish v. Walter Randolph, 2024-Ohio-1135, 239 N.E.3d 1023. “22AP-134 16 (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts; (2) The impairment…”
State ex rel. Davis v. Indus. Comm., 2025-Ohio-5152. “) The magistrate found that because R.C. 4123.58 requires only that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability, the commission held Davis to a heightened…”
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1137, 239 N.E.3d 1049. “58 governs compensation for PTD, allowing compensation only when one of the following conditions is met: (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one…”
State ex rel. Parrish v. Walter Randolph, 2024-Ohio-1135, 239 N.E.3d 1023. “22AP-134 16 (1) The claimant has lost, or lost the use of both hands or both arms, or both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof; however, the loss or loss of use of one limb does not constitute the loss or loss of use of two body parts; (2) The impairment…”
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc., 2024-Ohio-5713, 253 N.E.3d 100. “{¶ 8} While Prinkey’s second request for PTD compensation was pending before the commission, the General Assembly amended R.C. 4123.58, the statute governing PTD compensation.”
State ex rel. Davis v. Indus. Comm., 2025-Ohio-5152. “) The magistrate found that because R.C. 4123.58 requires only that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability, the commission held Davis to a heightened…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.