Title: State ex rel. Wooton v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Wooton v. Indus. Comm., 104 Ohio St. 3d 186, 2004-Ohio-6505.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WOOTON, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Wooton v. Indus. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 186, 2004-Ohio-
6505.] 
Workers’ compensation — R.C. 4123.511(J) applies to allow recoupment of 
erroneously paid compensation from claimant where period of 
overpayment postdates effective date of statute, regardless of date of 
injury. 
(No. 2004-0180 — Submitted October 13, 2004 — Decided December 22, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 03AP-5, 2003-Ohio-
7155. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1988, appellant-claimant, Janice S. Wooton, alleged that she had 
contracted an occupational disease arising out of her employment with Ohio State 
University (“OSU”).  A workers’ compensation claim was allowed initially for 
“bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; reflex sympathetic dystrophy right hand; elbow 
lateral epicondylitis.”  “Depressive disorder” was later added to the claim. 
{¶2} 
On October 20, 1993, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 107 became effective.  
145 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2990.  Among the new provisions was R.C. 4123.511(J).  
Id. at 3152.  That statute contained a graduated withholding scheme by which 
claimants who had received compensation from an award that was later 
overturned would repay the overpaid amount by having a percentage of 
compensation offset from future awards.  The previous version of this Revised 
Code section had no such provision for recovery from the claimant.  Instead, now-
repealed R.C. 4123.515 and 4123.519 limited the remedial scheme to employer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
credit or reimbursement from the State Surplus Fund.  See 143 Ohio Laws, Part 
II, 3353 and 3355.  Rarely were claimants required to repay the disputed amount. 
{¶3} 
In 1999, claimant moved appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio 
for permanent total disability compensation (“PTD”).  A commission staff hearing 
officer granted claimant’s application.  OSU filed a complaint in mandamus in the 
Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused 
its discretion in awarding PTD.  The court of appeals agreed in part, finding that 
the commission did not adequately explain its decision as required by State ex rel. 
Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.  It issued a 
limited writ that returned the cause to the commission for further consideration 
and amended order.  This court affirmed that decision.  State ex rel. Ohio State 
Univ. v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 496, 756 N.E.2d 664. 
{¶4} 
Upon reconsideration, the commission, in a lengthy order, 
determined that claimant could perform sustained remunerative employment and 
was not, therefore, entitled to PTD.  Claimant did not appeal.  Shortly thereafter, 
the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation determined that claimant had been 
overpaid PTD from April 22, 1998, through December 1, 2001, in the amount of 
$61,954.60.  The bureau specified that the amount was to be repaid by 
withholding a given amount from future awards consistent with R.C. 4123.511(J). 
{¶5} 
Claimant 
unsuccessfully 
contested 
this 
determination 
administratively.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin County, in mandamus, 
upheld the commission’s order, prompting claimant’s appeal to this court as of 
right. 
{¶6} 
Claimant asserts that because her injury predates the effective date 
of R.C. 4123.511(J), the statute does not control.  We, however, have already 
decided otherwise in State ex rel. Martin v. Indus. Comm. (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
376, 763 N.E.2d 156 — a case claimant and amicus overlook.  Under Martin, the 
period of overpayment, not the date of injury, controls.  Here, claimant’s 
January Term, 2004 
3 
overpayments began in April 1998, four and one-half years after R.C. 4123.511(J) 
was enacted. 
{¶7} 
Contrary to claimant’s representation, State ex rel. DeLong v. 
Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 345, 533 N.E.2d 729, and its predecessors, 
Indus. Comm. v. Dell (1922), 104 Ohio St. 389, 135 N.E. 669, State ex rel. 
Weimer v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 159, 16 O.O.3d 174, 404 N.E.2d 
149, and State ex rel. Martin v. Connor (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 213, 9 OBR 523, 
459 N.E.2d 889, are distinguishable from this case.  In those cases, compensation 
was terminated because it was discovered that payment had been initiated or 
continued as the result of a bona fide mistake.  Here, compensation was stopped 
because the order awarding it was reversed on administrative reconsideration.  
Consequently, the considerations so critical to the claimant’s retention of 
erroneously paid compensation in DeLong and its predecessors do not apply to the 
case at bar. 
{¶8} 
Claimant seeks almost $62,000 in PTD despite being found 
capable of sustained remunerative employment.  We cannot approve such a result.  
State ex rel. Wireman v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 286, 287, 551 
N.E.2d 1265. 
{¶9} 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
 
Philip J. Fulton Law Office, Philip J. Fulton, David B. Barnhart and 
William A. Thorman III, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. Bowman, urging reversal 
for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
_____________________