Case Title: State ex rel. Paneto v. Matos

Citation: 2011-Ohio-2857

Docket Number: 20091869

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Paneto v. Matos, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2857.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-2857 
THE STATE EX REL. PANETO, APPELLANT, v. MATOS ET AL.; INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Paneto v. Matos,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2857.] 
Workers’ compensation — R.C. 4123.57 — Claimant alleged that his permanent 
total disability award was a new or changed circumstance warranting 
reconsideration of the previous denial of his application for scheduled loss 
compensation — Court of appeals’ decision upholding commission’s 
order denying reconsideration affirmed. 
(No. 2009-1869 — Submitted June 8, 2011 — Decided June 16, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 08AP-926,  
2009-Ohio-4845. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Luiz A. Paneto, seeks R.C. 4123.57(B) scheduled loss 
compensation for an alleged total loss of use of his left leg.  Paneto injured his left 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
foot and ankle after falling from a ladder at work.  Despite surgery on the foot, he 
still uses a cane to walk and has a moderately severe limp. 
{¶ 2} Paneto moved appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, for 
scheduled loss compensation, alleging that he had sustained a total loss of use of 
his left leg.  The commission denied the application after finding that Paneto’s 
loss of use was not total, and that order became final. 
{¶ 3} Paneto was later awarded permanent total disability (“PTD”) 
compensation.  He then reapplied for total-loss-of-use compensation for the 
injured limb, alleging that his PTD award was a new or changed circumstance that 
warranted reconsideration of the previous denial. 
{¶ 4} The commission disagreed.  In an order dated September 15, 2008, 
a staff hearing officer found that the earlier denial of R.C. 4123.57(B) 
compensation rendered the issue res judicata and concluded that Paneto’s PTD 
award was not a new or changed circumstance that would justify reopening the 
scheduled-loss issue.  The hearing officer also found that even if the issue were 
amenable to further consideration, Paneto had not lost all use of the injured 
extremity.  He acknowledged that Paneto had a serious leg condition, but based 
upon the report of Dr. Karl V. Metz, concluded that Paneto “does in fact have 
some use of the left leg, and thus is not entitled to an award pursuant to Ohio 
Revised Code 4123.57, for a scheduled loss of use of the left leg.” 
{¶ 5} Further appeal was refused. 
{¶ 6} Paneto filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
denying scheduled loss compensation.  The court of appeals upheld the 
commission’s order and denied the writ, prompting Paneto’s appeal as of right to 
this court. 
{¶ 7} After Paneto filed his notice of appeal, the commission learned that 
he had been working full time as a home remodeler since October 2008.  The 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
commission accordingly terminated Paneto’s PTD compensation as of that date 
and specifically found that he had committed fraud, detailing at length his 
deliberate efforts to conceal his employment and the income from it.  We granted 
the commission’s motion to supplement the record with the PTD termination 
order. 
{¶ 8} Despite the fact that his PTD compensation was terminated, Paneto 
continues to argue that the award of PTD compensation was a new or changed 
circumstance sufficient to permit the commission to reopen the issue of scheduled 
loss benefits for his left leg.  We disagree.  The PTD award has been terminated.  
Moreover, the commission—despite its 2008 determination that the scheduled-
loss issue was res judicata—made a merit determination on Paneto’s 
compensation request and found that Paneto did not have a total loss of use.  The 
commission cited medical evidence that supports that conclusion, which negates 
the need for any further discussion. 
{¶ 9} The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Shapiro, Marnecheck, Riemer & Palnik, Matthew A. Palnik, and Philip 
Marnecheck, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Charissa D. Payer, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________