Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

High court orders reconsideration of worker’s nixed prescriptions

Reprints
Ohio

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reconsider its earlier decision allowing an employer to stop paying for an injured worker’s prescriptions.

In 2006, Robert Batina suffered an injury while working for T.S. Trim Industries Inc., a self-insured auto parts manufacturer in Winchester, Ohio, and was prescribed an opioid for pain relief and a muscle relaxer as part of his workers compensation claim. In 2016, T.S. Trim ordered a drug-utilization review by a physician, who found “insufficient credible evidence to support the necessity of ongoing continued narcotics when considering Mr. Batina’s history, medical record review, and physical exam,” according to documents in State Ex Rel. T.S. Trim Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, filed in Columbus.

Based on that review, T.S. Trim informed Mr. Batina that his use of the two drugs would be tapered, after which the company would no longer pay for the prescriptions. Mr. Batina filed a motion with the state’s Industrial Commission and a district hearing officer issued an order concluding that the “medical evidence was insufficiently persuasive” to support Mr. Batina’s continued use of the pain medication, but sufficient to support his continued use of a muscle relaxer.

The commission denied T.S. Trim’s request for reconsideration of this order that the drug be continued and the company petitioned the state’s Tenth District Court of Appeals to direct the commission to vacate its order and deny continued reimbursement for both drugs.

The appellate court then ordered the commission to identify the reasons for its denial of reconsideration. The commission later appealed that judgment for reconsideration, which the state’s highest court vacated, but ordered the commission to reconsider Mr. Batina’s motion to compel his employer to cover his drug costs in light of state law that requires insurers and employers to refer to the provisions of a drug formulary, put in place in 2017, when denying or approving drugs for injured workers.