{"id":46978,"date":"2017-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-10-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skolnicklaw.com\/blog\/2017\/10\/is-ohios-workers-compensation-law-on-appeals-still-intact\/"},"modified":"2025-01-26T09:16:36","modified_gmt":"2025-01-26T14:16:36","slug":"is-ohios-workers-compensation-law-on-appeals-still-intact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skolnicklaw.com\/is-ohios-workers-compensation-law-on-appeals-still-intact\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Ohio\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation law on appeals still intact?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Ohio has struggled under a troubling legal question regarding appeals under its workers\u2019 compensation program.<\/p>\n
In 2006, the state legislature passed a law that was designed to make appeals move through the workers\u2019 comp system faster \u2014 however, not everyone was happy with the measure so the question of its legality eventually found its way to the state\u2019s Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
At issue was the unusual way that Ohio handles some appeals under the workers\u2019 comp system. In most states, the injured worker in the workers\u2019 comp case can ask the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. That leaves the door open to refile the appeal when the worker has had time to gather more evidence and develop a stronger case.<\/p>\n
During that time, the worker is usually able to continue receiving benefits \u2014 which means that expenses can pile up on the employer\u2019s end of things. This ultimately put the employer at a disadvantage because the dismissals were essentially automatic. Many felt that the system was abused and that workers sometimes \u201cgamed\u201d the system in order to stretch out benefits to which they were no longer legitimately entitled.<\/p>\n
Since the 2006 change in the law, however, if the employer files the appeal against the employee, the employee can\u2019t get a dismissal unless the employer consents.<\/p>\n
An employee eventually sued claiming that the 2006 law was unconstitutional because it created two classes of plaintiffs \u2014 those who could get an automatic dismissal and those who couldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
After initially winning at the lower court level, the higher court weighed in and declared the rule constitutional after all. The court stated that the distinct classification of the two groups of plaintiffs served a legitimate purpose in that it helped stop improper payments and avoid unnecessary delays in appeals.<\/p>\n