Case Title: State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co.

Citation: 2003-Ohio-3802

Docket Number: 20020001

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 320, 2003-Ohio-3802.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CLARK, APPELLANT, v. GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION 
COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 320, 
2003-Ohio-3802.] 
Workers’ compensation — Claimant’s workers’ compensation claim suspended 
when claimant refuses to provide a medical release unless employer 
agrees to provide copies of all records to claimant at no cost. 
(No. 2002-0001 — Submitted April 30, 2003 — Decided July 30, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 01AP-326. 
__________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, J. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant, David Clark, executed a medical release for 
appellee-employer Great Lakes Construction Company (“GLC”).  In the cover 
letter enclosing the medical release, claimant stated that the release “is being 
provided on the condition that you will provide me with a copy of all records 
(without cost) as soon as the same are received by you.  If you are not willing to 
do so then the enclosed authorization is hereby revoked and I request that you 
immediately return the authorization to me.” 
{¶2} 
GLC responded to claimant’s attorney: 
{¶3} 
“[P]lease be advised that the employer will agree to provide, at no 
cost, copies of records that are submitted for purposes of the hearing process 
before the Industrial Commission; however, we will not agree to provide all 
records received at no cost.  The employer pays a hefty sum for the records 
secured in most claims and we have to pay a staff to copy them.  Therefore, if you 
want all records, they will be provided at .25 per page.  This position is reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
in light of the fact that the same records can easily be secured by Mr. Clark or you 
directly.” 
{¶4} 
Claimant promptly revoked his medical release.  GLC, in turn, 
asked appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio to suspend claimant’s workers’ 
compensation claim pursuant to R.C. 4123.651, asserting that claimant’s refusal 
to provide a release lacked good cause.  The commission agreed that claimant 
lacked good cause and granted the motion.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County concurred and denied claimant’s requested writ of mandamus. 
{¶5} 
This cause is now before this court on appeal as of right. 
{¶6} 
R.C. 4123.651 states: 
{¶7} 
“(B) * * * The claimant promptly shall provide a current signed 
release of the [medical] information, records, and reports when requested by the 
employer.  The employer promptly shall provide copies of all medical 
information, records, and reports to the bureau and to the claimant or his 
representative upon request. 
{¶8} 
“(C) If, without good cause, an employee * * * refuses to release 
or execute a release for any medical information, record, or report that is required 
to be released under this section and involves an issue pertinent to the condition 
alleged in the claim, his right to have his claim for compensation or benefits 
considered, if his claim is pending before the administrator, commission, or a 
district or staff hearing officer, or to receive any payment for compensation or 
benefits previously granted, is suspended during the period of refusal.” 
{¶9} 
A claimant’s refusal to provide a release without good cause 
suspends the claim.  Claimant argues that GLC’s imposition of a 25-cents-per-
page copying charge for documents that an employer is compelled to provide 
under R.C. 4123.651(B) contravenes the statute and thus constitutes good cause 
for his refusal to provide the release.  He asserts that because R.C. 4123.651(B) 
does not refer to copying costs, it must be presumed that copying costs are 
January Term, 2003 
3 
prohibited.  GLC and the commission contend that statutory silence is just that, 
and does not constitute an affirmative declaration. 
{¶10} It is a fundamental tenet of administrative law that an agency’s 
interpretation of a statute that it has the duty to enforce will not be overturned 
unless the interpretation is unreasonable. Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. 
Trades Council v. Conrad (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 282, 287-288, 750 N.E.2d 130.  
The commission’s reading of R.C. 4123.651(B) is reasonable and will not be 
overturned. 
{¶11} The commission’s reading of R.C. 4123.651(B) dovetails with 
R.C. 4113.23, which expressly allows an employer to charge a 25-cents-per-page 
copying fee for medical records provided to an employee where the examination 
was initiated by the employer.  R.C. 4113.23 provides: 
{¶12} “(A)  No employer * * * shall refuse upon written request of an 
employee to furnish to the employee or former employee * * * a copy of any 
medical report pertaining to the employee.  The requirements of this section 
extend to any medical report * * * arising out of any injury or disease related to 
the employee’s employment. * * *  
{¶13} “(B)  The employer may require the employee to pay the cost of 
furnishing copies of the medical reports described in division (A) of this section 
but in no case shall the employer charge more than twenty-five cents for each 
page of a report.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶14} The commission is not unreasonable when it reads R.C. 4123.651 
consistently with R.C. 4113.23.  It is patently reasonable for the commission to 
align R.C. 4123.651 copying costs with those allowed by R.C. 4113.23 where 
there is not an overwhelming reason to deviate from R.C. 4113.23. 
{¶15} Because the commission’s reading of R.C. 4123.651 is reasonable, 
it is our duty to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the 
commission’s order. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, YOUNG and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District, sitting for 
COOK, J. 
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. 
Jaffy; Philip A. Marnecheck and Matthew A. Palnik, for appellant. 
 
Battle & Miller, P.L.L., Sharon L. Miller, Richard Davies and James W. 
Ellis, for appellee Great Lakes Construction Company. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Philip J. Fulton & Associates, Philip J. Fulton, Jonathan H. Goodman and 
William A. Thorman, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial 
Lawyers. 
__________________