Case Title: State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm’n

Citation: 2014-Ohio-513

Docket Number: 2012-0734

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-513.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-513 
THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE; OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-513.] 
Workers’ Compensation—R.C. 4123.57(B)—Scheduled-loss benefits for loss of 
vision and hearing—Evidence does not support a finding that claimant’s 
eyes and ears no longer function—Inability to process sights and sounds 
due to anoxic brain damage—Appellate court’s judgment granting writ of 
mandamus reversed. 
(No. 2012-0734—Submitted August 20, 2013—Decided February 18, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-61,  
197 Ohio App.3d 289, 2012-Ohio-1011. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The Ohio State University appeals from a judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals that granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Commission to conduct a new adjudication of George Smith’s application 
requesting compensation for the scheduled loss of his vision and hearing pursuant 
to R.C. 4123.57(B). 
{¶ 2} Smith has been diagnosed with anoxic brain damage resulting from 
complications of surgery following an injury he sustained while working for the 
university.  Tragically, he remains in a persistent vegetative state.  Because of this 
condition, no test can be performed to determine whether he has suffered an 
actual loss of sight in one or both eyes or an actual loss of hearing in one or both 
ears, and the medical evidence shows that Smith is unable to process sights and 
sounds because of damage to his brain, not because of any injury to his eyes or 
ears.  However, the General Assembly has not included loss of brain-stem 
functioning in the schedule for compensation set forth in R.C. 4123.57. 
{¶ 3} Accordingly, the Industrial Commission properly denied the claim 
seeking additional compensation for loss of vision and hearing, and therefore, the 
judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 4} In 1995, George Smith suffered an injury while working for the 
Ohio State University.  The Industrial Commission initially allowed his claim for 
bilateral inguinal hernia, but postoperative complications from surgery to repair 
the hernia resulted in brain damage, leaving Smith in a persistent vegetative state.  
He amended the claim to add the conditions of anoxic brain damage and seizure 
disorder, and in 1998, the Industrial Commission awarded him benefits for 
permanent total disability.  In 2004, it granted additional benefits for the 
scheduled loss of use of both of his arms and legs. 
{¶ 5} In March 2009, Dr. Bienvenido Ortega examined Smith to 
determine the extent of his medical impairment.  Dr. Ortega noted that Smith 
showed no comprehension of language and did not respond to verbal questions.  
He also observed that although Smith’s gaze was fixed, his pupils reacted to 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
bright light, signifying that his optic nerves remained intact.  Dr. Ortega 
concluded that Smith had bilateral vision and hearing loss caused by the loss of 
brain function. 
{¶ 6} Smith sought additional scheduled awards for the loss of vision in 
both eyes and the loss of hearing in both ears.  On August 26, 2009, Dr. Ortega 
issued an addendum to his report in which he stated, “[T]here is no reliable 
physical test or examination that could be conducted that will determine that the 
injured worker suffered definite vision and hearing loss as a result of the [anoxic 
brain damage].  * * *  The claimant did not respond to any testing of the visual or 
hearing senses because of his anoxic brain damage.” 
{¶ 7} On December 28, 2009, Dr. Robert Hess examined Smith at the 
request of his counsel and agreed that “Smith’s hearing and vision cannot be 
tested due to the claimants’ [sic] inability to respond to external stimuli.”  He also 
recognized that “the optic nerve, with its central connections in the mid brain 
which activate a reactive pupil to light[,] * * * is functional.”  However, he opined 
that Smith is not able to “process any visual stimulation that is meaningful to him 
or can be used to improve his life situation,” because “no significant relay of the 
impulses past the brain stem to the visual cortex on either side exists.”  Dr. Hess 
therefore concluded that Smith suffered “a loss of function as if the effector organ 
has been traumatically removed.”  He also stated that he “[did] not believe that 
[Smith] hears or is able to receive communication that he can respond to, also 
because of loss of efferent pathways from the mid brain and auditory nerve to the 
auditory cortex bilaterally in the posterior superior temporal lobes.”  Based on his 
observations, Dr. Hess concluded that Smith had lost the ability to process visual 
and auditory stimuli and, therefore, for all practical purposes, had lost the ability 
to see and hear. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} After 
considering the evidence presented, the 
Industrial 
Commission denied Smith’s request for additional compensation based on the 
lack of any objective testing showing vision or hearing loss. 
{¶ 9} Smith filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals seeking to compel the Industrial Commission to vacate 
its order denying his application and to find that he is entitled to awards for loss of 
use of his eyes and ears.  The court of appeals held that for purposes of R.C. 
4123.57(B), scheduled loss benefits may be awarded “for a total loss of vision or 
hearing where the medical evidence considers the practical application of clinical 
or other data showing a loss of 100 percent or less.”  197 Ohio App.3d 289, 2012-
Ohio-1011, 967 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).  Because the commission did not 
apply that standard, the appellate court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the 
commission to conduct a new adjudication of Smith’s application.  Id. at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 10} The Ohio State University appealed as of right, asserting that R.C. 
4123.57(B) permits an award for loss of vision when the claimant presents 
evidence showing the percentage of vision actually lost and authorizes an award 
for loss of hearing when the loss is shown to be permanent and total.  It contends 
on this appeal that the Industrial Commission properly denied the additional 
award because Smith failed to present medical evidence showing any actual loss 
of vision or hearing. 
{¶ 11} Smith maintains that an injured worker may receive an award for 
loss of vision or hearing despite the lack of definitive evidence quantifying the 
exact amount of the loss.  He asserts that the loss of the brain’s ability to process 
visual or auditory stimuli—i.e., to comprehend sights and sounds—is equivalent 
to a loss of functioning of the eyes and ears and for all practical purposes he 
cannot see or hear because he remains in a persistent vegetative state.  He notes 
that in other contexts, the law recognizes that one lacking brain-stem functioning 
exists in a permanent unconscious state.  According to Smith, the medical 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
evidence therefore supports his claim for compensation for loss of vision and 
hearing because Dr. Ortega and Dr. Hess agreed that Smith cannot use his senses 
of sight and hearing. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, the issue is whether R.C. 4123.57(B) permits an award 
of compensation for the scheduled loss of vision or hearing when the inability to 
comprehend sights or sounds results from a lack of brain-stem function. 
Law and Analysis 
{¶ 13} R.C. 4123.57(B) authorizes compensation for a specific number of 
weeks for the loss of sight and hearing as follows: 
 
For the loss of the sight of an eye, one hundred twenty-five 
weeks. 
For the permanent partial loss of sight of an eye, the portion 
of one hundred twenty-five weeks as the administrator in each case 
determines, based upon the percentage of vision actually lost as a 
result of the injury or occupational disease, but, in no case shall an 
award of compensation be made for less than twenty-five per cent 
loss of uncorrected vision. “Loss of uncorrected vision” means the 
percentage of vision actually lost as the result of the injury or 
occupational disease. 
For the permanent and total loss of hearing of one ear, 
twenty-five weeks; but in no case shall an award of compensation 
be made for less than permanent and total loss of hearing of one 
ear. 
For the permanent and total loss of hearing, one hundred 
twenty-five weeks; but, except pursuant to the next preceding 
paragraph, in no case shall an award of compensation be made for 
less than permanent and total loss of hearing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Notably, the statute provides for compensation for the loss of 
sight of one or both eyes and the loss of hearing of one or both ears.  R.C. 4123.57 
does not, however, provide for compensation for a loss of brain-stem functioning 
that precludes the claimant from processing and understanding the visual and 
auditory stimuli that are received by functioning eyes and ears. 
{¶ 14} The court of appeals relied on State ex rel. Autozone, Inc. v. Indus. 
Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 186, 2008-Ohio-541, 883 N.E.2d 372; State ex rel. 
Kincaid v. Allen Refractories Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 129, 2007-Ohio-3758, 870 
N.E.2d 701; and State ex rel. Sheller-Globe Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 
51, 419 N.E.2d 1084 (1981), to support the proposition that a claimant may 
receive compensation for a total loss of vision or hearing “where the medical 
evidence considers the practical application of clinical or other data showing a 
loss of 100 percent or less.”  197 Ohio App.3d 289, 2012-Ohio-1011, 967 N.E.2d 
259, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).  But each of these cases involved injuries to the eyes or 
ears, not the brain stem.  In Autozone, the claimant perforated his left eye with a 
screwdriver while installing a wiper blade; in Kincaid, the claimant sustained an 
injury to his face that damaged his eyes and also resulted in scintillating 
scintellens, a condition causing periodic ocular disturbances in the eye; and in 
Sheller-Globe Corp., the claimant suffered an unspecified injury that resulted in a 
hearing loss in both ears.  In none of these cases was an injured worker awarded 
compensation for the inability of the brain to process visual or auditory signals 
caused by a loss of brain-stem function. 
{¶ 15} R.C. 4123.57 authorizes compensation for loss of sight when the 
claimant shows an actual loss of vision as result of injury to the eye and for loss 
of hearing occasioned by injury to the ear.  At the present time, this statute does 
not authorize compensation for the loss of brain-stem functioning. 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
{¶ 16} Here, there is no evidence that Smith lost the sight of an eye.  Dr. 
Hess identified no injury to either eye, and he stated that “the optic nerve, with its 
central connections in the mid brain which activate a reactive pupil to light[,] 
* * * is functional.”  Nonetheless, he opined that Smith is not able to “process any 
visual stimulation that is meaningful to him or can be used to improve his life 
situation,” because “no significant relay of the impulses past the brain stem to the 
visual cortex on either side exists.”  (Emphasis added.)  Dr. Hess thus concluded 
that Smith suffered “a loss of function as if the effector organ has been 
traumatically removed.”  This evidence indicates that Smith has suffered a loss of 
function in the brain stem that precludes him from processing and understanding 
visual signals, but his eyes nevertheless still function. 
{¶ 17} Similarly, Dr. Hess could not detect any actual damage to Smith’s 
ears, yet he asserted that he “[did] not believe that he hears or is able to receive 
communication that he can respond to, also because of loss of efferent pathways 
from the mid brain and auditory nerve to the auditory cortex bilaterally in the 
posterior superior temporal lobes.”  (Emphasis added.)  But Dr. Hess admitted 
that there is no test that can show whether Smith’s ears actually function, and 
thus, his belief that Smith cannot hear is speculative.  Moreover, the medical 
evidence presented shows only that Smith is unable to process sounds because of 
damage to his brain, not because of any damage to his ears. 
{¶ 18} Smith has already been awarded workers’ compensation benefits 
on the allowed condition of anoxic brain damage, and it appears that any inability 
to process sights and sounds in his brain directly results from that allowed 
condition.  The medical evidence shows that Smith lacks the ability to process 
visual and auditory stimuli because there is no relay of the impulses past the brain 
stem to the visual cortex on either side and because there is a loss of efferent 
pathways from the mid brain and auditory nerve to the auditory cortex.  And there 
is apparently no test that can be performed to establish definitively whether Smith 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
has an actual loss of sight in one or both eyes or an actual loss of hearing in one or 
both ears.  Thus, the evidence presented to the Industrial Commission does not 
support a finding that Smith’s eyes and ears no longer function. 
{¶ 19} Smith suffers from a loss of brain-stem functioning, a loss that the 
General Assembly has not included in the schedule for compensation set forth in 
R.C. 4123.57.  The Industrial Commission therefore properly denied his claim 
seeking additional compensation for loss of vision and hearing.  Accordingly, we 
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the determination of the 
Industrial Commission. 
Judgment reversed. 
O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, SADLER, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
LISA L. SADLER, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for FRENCH, J. 
___________________ 
LANZINGER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 20} I respectfully dissent and would hold that the Industrial 
Commission should have considered the medical opinions in Smith’s case.  I 
would therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 21} An injured worker may qualify for a number of different benefits 
under Ohio’s workers’ compensation statutes.  The Industrial Commission 
awarded permanent-total-disability benefits to George Smith in 1998 due to his 
persistent vegetative state that resulted from his work-related injury.  This benefit, 
pursuant to R.C. 4123.58, is designed to compensate for the loss of earning 
capacity for life.  State ex rel. Nestle USA—Prepared Foods Div., Inc. v. Indus. 
Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 386, 2004-Ohio-1667, 805 N.E.2d 1098, ¶ 8.  In 2004, 
Smith was granted “permanent partial disability” in the form of scheduled-loss 
benefits under R.C. 4123.57(B) for loss of the use of his arms and legs.  While it 
might appear that an award for permanent partial disability duplicated his earlier 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
permanent-total-disability benefits, R.C. 4123.58(E) states that “[c]ompensation 
payable under this section for permanent total disability is in addition to benefits 
payable under division (B) of section 4123.57 of the Revised Code [for permanent 
partial disability].”  Any permanent-partial-disability award is in the nature of 
damages and is specifically enumerated in R.C. 4123.57(B).  Smith now seeks an 
award for the permanent loss of sight and the permanent loss of hearing as 
specified in that section. 
{¶ 22} In reversing the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, 
the majority holds that because Smith cannot be given a definitive test for sight 
and hearing due to his persistent vegetative state, “the evidence presented to the 
Industrial Commission does not support a finding that Smith’s eyes and ears no 
longer function.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 18.  While it is true that the loss of brain-
stem functioning is not listed in the schedule for compensation set forth in R.C. 
4123.57(B), the schedule also does not specifically list loss of eyes or loss of ears, 
as it does other parts of the body.  Instead, the schedule lists “loss of sight” and 
“loss of hearing,” which are different. 
{¶ 23} Smith’s scheduled-loss compensation for the total loss of use of his 
arms and legs did not require a percentage of loss to be shown, but the statutory 
standard is different when the loss involves vision and hearing.  For a less than 
total loss of vision, R.C. 4123.57(B) authorizes compensation “based upon the 
percentage of vision actually lost as a result of the injury or occupational disease, 
but, in no case shall an award of compensation be made for less than twenty-five 
per cent loss of uncorrected vision.”  For the loss of hearing, R.C. 4123.57(B) 
authorizes an award if the loss is permanent and total in one or both ears. 
{¶ 24} We have been flexible in determining the proof necessary to 
establish a total loss of vision or hearing under R.C. 4123.57(B).  We have found 
a total loss of vision or hearing for purposes of R.C. 4123.57(B) when the loss 
was clinically diagnosed as less than a 100 percent.  In State ex rel. Autozone, Inc. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 186, 2008-Ohio-541, 883 N.E.2d 372, we held 
that a diagnosis of legal blindness in one eye equated to the loss of sight of an eye 
for purposes of R.C. 4123.57(B), and in State ex rel. Kincaid v. Allen Refractories 
Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 129, 2007-Ohio-3758, 870 N.E.2d 701, we determined that a 
loss of vision occurring on an intermittent basis was permanent and total for 
purposes of R.C. 4123.57(B). 
{¶ 25} In State ex rel. Sheller-Globe Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 66 Ohio 
St.2d 51, 419 N.E.2d 1084 (1981), we affirmed the judgment in State ex rel. 
Sheller-Globe Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 80AP-194, 1980 
WL 353639 (Aug. 21, 1980), in which the court of appeals stated: 
 
Within the context of the statute, the word “hearing” connotes the 
ability to comprehend everyday speech.  In other words, hearing 
connotes the ability to comprehend the spoken word for the 
purpose of communication with others.  The mere fact that a 
person is able to discern certain sounds of certain frequencies at 
certain intensities does not prevent a finding of a total loss of 
hearing if the person is unable to hear and comprehend the spoken 
word even when spoken extremely loud. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Id. at *3. 
{¶ 26} Smith suffered his work-related injury in December 1995, and his 
claim was initially allowed for bilateral inguinal hernia.  After surgery to repair 
the hernia, he suffered postoperative complications that led to brain damage.  His 
claim was later amended to add the conditions of anoxic brain damage and seizure 
disorder. 
{¶ 27} In March 2009, Dr. Bienvenido Ortega examined Smith to 
determine the extent of his medical impairment.  Dr. Ortega noted that Smith 
January Term, 2014 
11 
 
showed no comprehension of language and did not respond to verbal questions.  
He also noted that Smith’s gaze was fixed but that his pupils reacted to bright 
light, which signifies that his optic nerves are intact.  Dr. Ortega concluded that 
Smith had bilateral vision and hearing loss but that the losses were due to the loss 
of his brain function. 
{¶ 28} On December 28, 2009, Dr. Robert Hess examined Smith.  Dr. 
Hess agreed with Dr. Ortega that Smith’s hearing and vision could not be tested 
due to his inability to respond to external stimuli.  Dr. Hess stated that he had 
observed Smith’s pupils respond to light but that that response was merely a 
reflex.  Dr. Hess determined that Smith’s brain could not process any visual 
stimulation or receive auditory communication.  Thus, Dr. Hess concluded, Smith 
suffered the loss of his visual and auditory functions for all practical purposes. 
{¶ 29} This medical evidence established that Smith is unable to see or 
hear and that the losses are the result of his allowed condition, i.e., the anoxic 
brain damage.  I would hold that this medical evidence should have been 
considered by the Industrial Commission in determining whether Smith has 
established the right to additional compensation as a result of his allowed 
condition.  For this reason, I dissent and would affirm the judgment of court of 
appeals and adopt its analysis. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
____________________ 
Malek & Malek and Douglas C. Malek, for appellee George Smith. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General; and Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., 
Michael L. Squillace, and Christen S. Hignett, for appellant. 
_________________________