Case Title: State ex rel. Hoskins v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-484

Docket Number: 19980073

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Hoskins v. Indus. Comm., 87 Ohio St.3d 560, 2000-Ohio-484.] 
 
 
 
 
 
[THE STATE EX REL.] HOSKINS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hoskins v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 560.] 
Workers’ compensation — Permanent partial and permanent total disability 
compensation cannot be concurrently paid for the same conditions. 
(No. 98-73 – Submitted November 16, 1999 – Decided January 26, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD08-1108. 
 
Claimant-appellant, James L. Hoskins, was industrially injured in 1978 
while working for Wermer Construction Company, and his workers’ compensation 
claim was allowed.  On August 21, 1990, claimant was awarded permanent partial 
disability compensation (“PPD”) by appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio from 
November 11, 1988 to May 24, 1990.  In 1993, claimant was granted permanent 
total disability compensation (“PTD”), with a backdated award beginning on 
December 2, 1988.  The PTD order also deducted, from the award, the amount of 
PPD paid claimant from December 2, 1988 through May 24, 1990. 
 
In 1996, claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in deducting 
the amount of PPD from his PTD award.  The court of appeals denied the writ. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Philip J. Fulton & Assoc. and William A. Thorman III, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jonathan A. Good, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In State ex rel. Murray v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 
473, 588 N.E.2d 855, we held that permanent partial and permanent total disability 
compensation could not be concurrently paid for the same conditions.  Claimant 
attempts to distinguish Murray by pointing out that, unlike here, the claimant in 
Murray received PTD first.  We find this distinction to be without consequence, 
since, regardless of the sequence of payment, claimant is still effectively alleging 
that the same conditions are simultaneously partially and totally disabling. 
 
Claimant argues that under the payment mechanics of R.C. 4123.57, the 
period over which PPD is paid does not necessarily correspond to the period of 
partial disability alleged. While sometimes true, the fact remains that in this case, 
the claimant would still receive compensation for total disability and compensation 
for partial disability for the same conditions at the same time.  This is not 
appropriate. 
 
 
3
 
Finally, claimant argues that PPD is unique, being the only form of 
compensation that resembles a damages award.  As such, he contends that 
contemporaneous payment does not offend any notion of “double recovery.”  
Claimant, however, overlooks the offset provisions of former R.C. 4123.57(D), 
which demonstrate that the “special character” of PPD does not immunize it from 
offset from other types of compensation, including that for impaired earning 
capacity, which is of the same character as PTD. 
 
For all of these reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby 
affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals.