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

Citation: 1998-Ohio-22

Docket Number: 19961388

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. CRAWFORD, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO 
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Crawford v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Denial of rehabilitation wage loss compensation by 
Industrial Commission not an abuse of discretion when claimant clearly not 
eligible for benefit sought — Ohio Adm.Code 4123-18-21, applied. 
(No. 96-1388 — Submitted October 13, 1998 — Decided November 10, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD10-1340. 
 
Appellant-claimant, Barbara A. Crawford, was injured on August 16, 1985, 
in the course of and arising from her employment with appellee White 
Consolidated Industries.  After her workers’ compensation claim was allowed, 
claimant participated in the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation rehabilitation 
training program.  She successfully completed her rehabilitation in 1992, and 
secured a job with a new employer.  It is undisputed that claimant made less at her 
new job than she had at White Consolidated Industries. 
 
On January 11, 1993, claimant sought compensation for rehabilitation wage 
loss pursuant to R.C. 4121.67(B), citing the difference in wages.  The appellee, 
Industrial Commission, denied compensation, writing: 
 
“Rehabilitation wage loss is denied for the reason that such compensation 
exists only for claimant’s [sic] whose dates of injury occur on or after 8/22/86, as 
that is when it was statutorially enacted.  The claimant’s date of injury predates 
8/22/86; therefore, there is no jurisdiction to consider such an award in this claim.” 
 
Claimant commenced an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
compensation.  The court of appeals disagreed, and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of writ. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and C. Bradley Howenstein, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Baran Piper Tarkowsky Fitzgerald & Theis and John Tarkowsky, for 
appellee White Consolidated Industries. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Claimant seeks compensation pursuant to R.C. 4121.67.  That 
statute was amended effective August 22, 1986.  That statute, as amended again in 
1989, read: 
 
“The administrator of workers’ compensation, subject to the approval of the 
workers’ compensation board, shall adopt rules: 
 
“(A) For the encouragement of reemployment of claimants who have 
successfully completed prescribed rehabilitation programs by payment from the 
surplus fund established by section 4123.34 of the Revised Code to employers 
who employ or reemploy the claimants.  The period or periods of payments shall 
not exceed six months in the aggregate, unless the administrator or his designee 
determines that the claimant will be benefited by an extension of payments. 
 
“(B) Requiring payment, in the same manner as living maintenance 
payments are made pursuant to section 4121.63 of the Revised Code, to the 
claimant who completes a rehabilitation training program and returns to 
employment, but who suffers a wage loss compared to the wage the claimant was 
receiving at the time of injury.  Payments per week shall be sixty-six and two-
thirds per cent of the difference, if any, between the claimant’s weekly wage at the 
time of injury and the weekly wage received while employed, up to a maximum 
 
3
payment per week equal to the statewide average weekly wage.  The payments 
may continue for up to a maximum of two hundred weeks but shall be reduced by 
the corresponding number of weeks in which the claimant receives payments 
pursuant to division (B) of section 4123.56 of the Revised Code.”  (143 Ohio 
Laws, Part II, 3301-3302.) 
 
Supplementing the statute, Ohio Adm.Code 4123-18-21 provides: 
 
“The provisions of this rule shall apply to all claims where the date of 
injury or date of disability and occupational disease claims accrued on or after 
August 22, 1986. 
 
“(A) The rehabilitation division shall authorize the bureau of workers’ 
compensation to make payments to claimant’s who complete a rehabilitation 
program and who return to work, and who suffer a wage loss as a consequence 
thereof. 
 
“(B) Payments shall be sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the difference 
between the greater of the claimant’s full weekly wage or average weekly wage on 
the claim for which the claimant underwent a rehabilitation program and the 
weekly wage received while employed up to a maximum per week equal to the 
statewide average weekly wage. * * * ”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Contrary to claimant’s representation, there is no issue of applicability.  
Ohio Adm.Code 4123-18-21 is very clear.  Only claimants injured after August 
22, 1986, are eligible for rehabilitation wage loss compensation.  Claimant here 
was injured on August 16, 1985.  Claimant lacks, therefore, clear legal right to the 
relief requested. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
4
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent.