[Cite as State ex rel. Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 20, 2011-Ohio-4606.]

T HE S TATE EX REL . D OLGENCORP , I NC ., A PPELLEE , v . I NDUSTRIAL C OMMISSION OF O HIO ET AL ., A PPELLANTS . [Cite as State ex rel. Dolgencor p, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 20, 2011-Ohio-4606.] Workers’ compensation—R.C. 4123.57(B)—Scheduled-loss compensation—Loss of vision—Effect of corrective surgery— State ex rel. Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, L.L.C., followed. (No. 2010-0124—Submitted August 8, 2011— Decided September 15, 2011.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 08AP-1014,
2009-Ohio-6565.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Appellant Joanne R. Simpson seek s compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B) for a total loss of left-eye vision. Simpson splashed bleach in her left eye while working for appellee, Dolgencorp, Inc. (a.k.a. Dollar General). The eye was copiously flushed at the emergenc y room, and several medications for inflammation were prescribed. {¶ 2} Simpson lost little vision as a result of the accident, with three doctors assessing her loss at 5 percen t. She did, however, experience other complications as a result of the accident , including light sensitivity, tearing, excessive blinking, glare phenomen a, and reduced depth perception. {¶ 3} In 2007, Simpson became a candidate for a corneal transplant. After the procedure was performed, Simpson’s left-eye vision was 20/80 uncorrected
and 20/60 corrected. {¶ 4} Simpson requested scheduled-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B), alleging that she had sustained a total loss of vision in her left eyeS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 due to the removal of her cornea. A sta ff hearing officer for appellant, Industrial Commission of Ohio, agreed: {¶ 5} “The Staff Hearing Officer finds the injured worker sustained an injury to her left eye as the result of a chemical splash in her eye. Following treatment, it was determined that the injured worker needed a lens [sic, ‘cornea’] transplant. The [cornea] was surgically removed on 08/28/2007. The surgical removal of the [cornea] resulted in a total loss of use of the left eye. Therefore, a
total loss of use is awarded c onsistent with O.R.C. 4123.57(B).” {¶ 6} Further appeal was refused. {¶ 7} Dolgencorp filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that th e commission had abused its discretion in awarding compensation for a total loss of vision. The court of appeals agreed and
issued a writ that ordered the commission to vacate its order and to issue a new one that denied compensation for total loss of vision. {¶ 8} Simpson and the commission now appeal to this court as of right. {¶ 9} Pursuant to State ex rel. Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, L.L.C.
, 129 Ohio St.3d 138, 2011-Ohio-2721, 950 N.E.2d 924, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, L.L.C. , 129 Ohio St.3d 138, 2011-Ohio-2721, 950 N.E.2d 924.

__________________ Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Mick L. Proxmire, for appellee. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Charissa D. Payer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio.January Term, 2011

3 Philip J. Fulton Law Office, Ross R. Fulton, and Philip J. Fulton, for appellant Joanne R. Simpson.

______________________