 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio6/28/2005
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
IN MANDAMUS
FRENCH, J.
{ } Relator, Navistar International Transportation Corporation, has filed an original action in mandamus requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order authorizing respondents, Toney Adams, Thomas A. Clifford, and Arthur W. Cason ("claimants") to receive physical therapy at a facility other than relator's on-site physical therapy facility ("on-site facility") and ordering the commission to require claimants to receive their physical therapy at relator's on-site facility.
{ } This court referred the matter to a magistrate, pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C) and Section (M), Loc.R. 12 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, who rendered a decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.)The magistrate concluded that this court should deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus.
{ } Relator has filed objections to the magistrate's decision, arguing that the magistrate: (1) misunderstood the issues and arguments presented; and (2) erroneously concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that the claimants' requests for physical therapy at an off-site facility satisfied the criteria set forth in State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 229. Relator contends it has not argued for a blanket rule requiring its injured employees to always receive necessary physical therapy at its on-site facility, but has argued that injured workers do not have an unfettered right to choose where they receive treatment and that the commission must consider the employer's interests, including the employer's costs, when applying the Miller criteria. The commission and claimant Thomas A. Clifford filed memoranda in opposition to relator's objections and in support of the magistrate's decision.
{ } For the reasons below, we sustain relator's first objection and overrule relator's second objection.
{ } The magistrate's decision includes detailed findings of fact, and we adopt those findings as our own. As indicated therein, claimants sustained work-related injuries while employed by relator. Claimants' treating physician, Dr. Paul Nitz, completed C-9 forms requesting relator to authorize a certain period of physical therapy for each claimant. Relator approved the requests, conditioned on the claimants receiving their physical therapy at relator's on-site facility rather than at Springfield Physical Therapy ("Springfield") as Dr. Nitz recommended in the C-9 forms. Because claimants did not agree to receive physical therapy at relator's on-site facility, relator denied claimants' C-9 requests.
{ } Claimants filed motions with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") requesting approval of their requests to receive physical therapy at Springfield. As claimants' motions proceeded through the administrative process, a District Hearing Officer, Staff Hearing Officer, and the commission heard each claimant's motion. In unanimous decisions, the commission determined that claimants were entitled to receive physical therapy at Springfield. The commission's decision provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The issue in this case is whether the injured worker has the right to have the physical therapy performed at a private therapy facility -- in this case Springfield Physical Therapy -- or whether the therapy can be performed only at the on-site physical therapy facility of the employer. Physical therapy is a medical service and the employer has cit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|