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

Citation: 2002-Ohio-4759

Docket Number: 20011946

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Qiblawe v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 347, 2002-Ohio-4759.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. QIBLAWE, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO 
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Qiblawe v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 347, 2002-Ohio-
4759.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application for scheduled loss compensation under R.C. 
4123.57(B) based on traumatic amputation of long finger allowed by 
Industrial Commission — Additional scheduled loss award sought for 
surgical removal of index finger for reattachment at long finger amputation 
site — Court of appeals’ judgment affirming Industrial Commission’s denial 
of amputation benefits for surgical amputation affirmed — Claimant still 
has useful, viable index finger even though not at its original site. 
(No. 2001-1946 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided September 25, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 01AP-15. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant Tracy Qiblawe’s right long finger was amputated 
in the course of and arising from her employment with appellee Flexible Personnel, 
Inc., d.b.a. Staffmark, Inc.  A workers’ compensation claim was allowed, and she 
received a scheduled loss award for that finger under R.C. 4123.57(B). 
{¶2} 
On a doctor’s recommendation, claimant had her right index finger 
surgically removed and reattached at the long finger amputation site in order “to close 
the gap so that small objects no longer fall through [her] hand.”  The surgery was 
successful, and claimant regained most of the motion in that finger albeit at a 
different site. 
{¶3} 
Claimant later sought an additional scheduled loss award for her 
transplanted right index finger.  Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied the 
motion, finding that claimant still had a useful, viable index finger even though it was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
not at its original site.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin County agreed and denied 
the requested writ of mandamus, prompting claimant’s appeal as of right. 
{¶4} 
State ex rel. Welker v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 98, 742 
N.E.2d 622, held that successful reattachment of a digit barred a scheduled loss award 
under R.C. 4123.57(B).  Claimant seeks to distinguish Welker, arguing that she has 
had two amputations—the traumatic amputation of her long finger and the surgical 
amputation of her index finger to replace it.  We reject claimant’s proposed 
distinction and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶5} 
Claimant seeks to completely eliminate successful surgical 
reattachment from the equation.  Two amputations have resulted in the loss of only 
one digit.  She has lost one digit but nevertheless wants compensation for two.  Even 
if claimant’s surgical-amputation rationale is given credence, the successful surgical 
reattachment at the long finger amputation site eliminates loss there, still leaving 
claimant entitled to just one award. 
{¶6} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. Bowman, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Charles D. Smith and Noel C. Shepard, for 
appellee Flexible Personnel, Inc., d.b.a. Staffmark, Inc. 
__________________