An Ohio appellate court issued a limited writ returning a worker’s application for permanent total disability benefits to the Industrial Commission to make findings as to whether he presented evidence of new and changed circumstances.
Michael Oberdier established workers compensation claims for cervical spine injuries in 1989, lumbar spine injuries and major depression in 2013, and a low-back injury in 2016, according to Oberdier v. Industrial Commission, filed Nov. 20.
In July 2021, a staff hearing officer denied his first application for permanent total disability benefits. The hearing officer held that Mr. Oberdier was capable of engaging in sustained remunerative employment in sedentary work within the restrictions noted by his doctor.
In November 2021, however, a district hearing officer found that Mr. Oberdier had a 37% permanent partial disability rating based on three medical reports issued after the July 2021 order denying PTD benefits.
In May 2022, a hearing officer issued an order finding that Mr. Oberdier’s percentage of permanent partial disability in the 1989 claim had increased to 26% from 24%, based on two medical reports also issued after the July 2021 order.
In August 2023, a hearing officer found that Mr. Oberdier’s percentage of permanent partial disability in the 2013 claim had increased to 43% from 37%, based on two medical reports issued after those referenced in the November 2021 order.
Mr. Oberdier sought permanent total disability compensation for a second time in September 2023. A hearing officer denied the application in May 2024, finding that he did not present sufficient evidence of substantial new and changed circumstances since his first unsuccessful application to warrant adjudicating another application.
After the Industrial Commission declined further consideration, Mr. Oberdier sought mandamus relief. He explained that Ohio law requires a worker to present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the commission can consider a subsequent PTD application. There is no statutory requirement that the evidence “be meaningful or substantial,” a magistrate wrote.
By requiring Mr. Oberdier to prove that the change in circumstances was substantial, the hearing officer imposed a “different and seemingly heightened burden” than what is required under the law, he wrote.
WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.