Home
About Us
Services
People
News
Publications

Well done, Ollie. book

Advocate: The Litigation Newsletter

Business, Tax & Securities Alert

Construction Law Newsletter & Alert

Estate Planning & Probate Newsletter

Housing Newsletter

Labor & Employment Law Publications

Subscribe

Opt-Out

Events
Careers
Offices
Contact
Press
RSS Web Feeds
 

January 6, 2006

Physical Injury Still Required for Valid Ohio Workers' Compensation Claim

By David M. McCarty

McCarty photo

Last week the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a workers' compensation statute requiring a physical injury before a claim is deemed compensable.

Kimberly McCrone was working as a bank teller at a Bank One branch in Canton when her branch was robbed. While she was not physically hurt, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and filed a workers' compensation claim for that psychological condition. The Industrial Commission denied her claim because the workers' compensation statute requires a physical injury before a psychological condition is considered compensable. That is, the physical injury must cause the psychological condition. Ms. McCrone appealed the disallowance of her claim into court and Bank One filed a motion for summary judgment. The Stark County Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision and ruled in favor of Ms. McCrone, finding that the exclusion of solely psychological injuries from workers' compensation coverage is unconstitutional because it denies such employees equal protection under the law. The matter was then heard by The Supreme Court of Ohio.

In a 5-2 decision, a majority of the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the Legislature's prerogative to define what is and what is not compensable for workers' compensation purposes. It found that the Legislature had legitimate reasons to exclude purely psychological injuries. For example, it noted that it is hard to prove the existence and cause of psychological injuries, as opposed to most physical ones. Likewise, the Court held the Legislature can legitimately limit coverage to only certain types of conditions to ensure the efficient use of the workers' compensation fund, whose resources are limited. In a concurring opinion, one of the Justices encouraged the Legislature to fully consider the question of whether solely psychological conditions should be covered by workers' compensation. Until the Legislature makes such a change, an employee with solely psychological injuries is entitled to bring a negligence action against the employer pursuant to the Bunger case, decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1998.


Credits

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter's E-mployment Alert is prepared by the Labor & Employee Relations practice group.

To subscribe to any Kegler Brown publication, please use our Subscribe Form. To unsubscribe from any Kegler Brown publication, please use our Opt-Out Form. This publication, as well as an archive of previous publications, is also available from our Publications Archive.

The E-mployment Alert is designed to provide general information about the subjects discussed. It is not meant to be all-inclusive or comprehensive. Kegler Brown is not rendering any legal or professional advice by way of this publication.

© 2000-2008, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A.

Mediation Services

Well done, Ollie.

Kegler Brown Publications

State Capital Group

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter© 2008, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., LPA.  Disclaimer  |  Privacy Statement  |  Site Map

Member firms of the State Capital Group practice independently and not in a relationship for the joint practice of law.