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

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5306

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 37, 2002-Ohio-5306.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. THOMAS, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 37, 2002-Ohio-
5306.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application for permanent total disability 
compensation denied by Industrial Commission — Court of appeals’ grant 
of writ of mandamus ordering an award of statutory permanent total 
disability compensation under R.C. 4123.58(C) affirmed — Claimant’s 
right arm loss entailed separate entities of hand and arm entitling him to 
permanent total disability compensation. 
(No. 2001-0237 — Submitted July 24, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-289. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellee-claimant Vaughn P. Thomas’s workers’ compensation 
claim has been allowed for assorted arm, hand, and psychological conditions.  In 
1997, he received an award under R.C. 4123.57(B) for total loss of use of his right 
arm. 
{¶2} 
In 1999, claimant moved for permanent total disability 
compensation (“PTD”).  Appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio, however, 
found claimant capable of sustained remunerative employment.  It also denied 
claimant’s request to be declared statutorily permanently and totally disabled 
under R.C. 4123.58(C), writing: 
{¶3} 
“Under O.R.C. 4123.58(C) statutory permanent and total disability 
is awarded when there is found to be a loss of use of both hands, or both arms, or 
both feet or both legs, or both eyes, or any two thereof.  In the instant case the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
claimant has received an award for a total loss of use of the right arm.  Claimant’s 
argument is that because he has been awarded a total loss of use of the right arm, 
that necessarily means that he has a total loss of use of the right hand and right 
arm which would then constitute the loss of two limbs and qualify him for 
statutory and permanent total disability * * *.  This argument is found not to be 
well taken because this statue [sic] requires that the loss be of both hands or arms 
or any combination thereof.  Merely because the claimant loses the use of a hand 
and arm that loss is considered to be one entity and not the loss of two separate 
body parts as the statue [sic] requires.  Because the claimant has only lost the use 
of one arm, and not both arms, he cannot be awarded statutory permanent 
disability.  To hold otherwise, that is to hold [that] the loss of one upper extremity 
whether it be the left or right arm constitutes the loss of two body parts, would be 
a misconstruction of the statue [sic] as the statute requires the loss of separate 
hands or separate arms and not the loss of one side or the other.  Consequently, 
based on the aforementioned reasoning[,] the claimant’s request for statutory 
permanent and total disability is hereby denied.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶4} 
Claimant prevailed at the court of appeals, and a writ of mandamus 
issued that ordered an award of statutory PTD.  The court of appeals held that the 
claimant’s right arm loss entailed separate entities of hand and arm, thereby 
entitling him to PTD. 
{¶5} 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶6} 
Upon review, we agree with the reasoning provided by the court of 
appeals.  For the reasons given in that opinion, we hereby affirm its judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent in accordance 
with the order of the Industrial Commission. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
Philip J. Fulton & Associates and Jonathan H. Goodman, for appellee. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thomas L. Reitz, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellant. 
 
Butler, Cincione, DiCuccio & Barnhart and David B. Barnhart, urging 
affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
__________________