DocketNumber: No. 04AP-227.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 7198
Judges: McCORMAC, J.
Filed Date: 12/30/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} This court referred the matter to a magistrate, pursuant to Civ. R. 53(C) and Loc. R. 12(M) 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 decided that relator's request for a writ of mandamus should be denied.
{¶ 3} Arnold L. Hampton ("claimant") has filed the following objections to the magistrate's decision:
1. The Magistrate erred in finding that the Commission properly denied Hampton's request for allowance of total loss of vision benefits.
2. The Magistrate erred by weighing facts and interpreting the evidence in finding that the beginning of a cataract in claimant's right eye had not advanced to such a stage that it reduced his vision enough to warrant an award for permanent partial disability compensation.
{¶ 4} There are no objections to the magistrate's findings of fact and, upon review of the file, we find that the facts are fully supported by the evidence.
{¶ 5} An award for loss of vision is a percentage of permanent partial disability ("PPD") as provided for in R.C. §
For the loss of the sight of an eye, one hundred twenty-five weeks.
For the permanent partial loss of sight of an eye, the portion of one hundred twenty-five weeks as the administrator in each case determines, based upon the percentage of vision actually lost as a result of the injury or occupational disease, but, in no case shall an award of compensation be made for less than twenty-five per cent loss of uncorrected vision. "Loss of uncorrected vision" means the percentage of vision actually lost as the result of the injury or occupational disease.
{¶ 6} The evidence is clear that, in applying this formula to the percentage of loss of vision to claimant's right eye, there was less than a 25 percent loss as stated by Dr. Thomas B. Dankworth and Dr. Leonard Jacobson. Even if the record contains evidence which would indicate over a 25 percent loss of vision, there would be no abuse of discretion on the part of the commission since there is ample evidence that the loss of vision was less than 25 percent.
{¶ 7} Claimant's second objection concerns the finding that there was the beginning of a cataract in his right eye that was connected to the industrial injury. The magistrate stated that "the cataract has not advanced to such a stage that it reduced his vision enough to warrant an award of PPD compensation." Claimant misses the point of the magistrate in that statement. The statement means that, even with the beginning of a cataract, it had not advanced to the stage where the eye, considered as a whole after the retina detachment was surgically repaired, amounted to a 25 percent or more loss of vision in that right eye. As we held in our case of State ex rel. Gen. Elec. Corp. v. Indus. Comm., Franklin App. No. 02AP-1291,
{¶ 8} The possible or even probable need for a cataract removal operation in the future is not an issue before us at this time. As we stated in Gen. Elec. Corp., at ¶ 7, "[t]o the extent that any problems should arise in the future with respect to claimant's vision, claimant may seek compensation under R.C.
{¶ 9} Following an independent review, pursuant to Civ. R. 53, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the salient law to them. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, claimant's objections are overruled, and the request for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Objections overruled, writ of mandamus denied.
Petree and French, JJ., concur.
McCormac, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, for respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 11} 1. Relator sustained a work-related injury on December 3, 1996, and his claim has been allowed for: "traumatic vitreous hemorrhage of right eye; contusion right eyeball; partial right eyeball tear; right ocular globe rupture; detached retina right eye."
{¶ 12} 2. Relator's retinal detachment was surgically repaired in December 1996.
{¶ 13} 3. On February 27, 2002, relator filed a motion requesting that his claim be additionally allowed for "traumatic cataract right eye," and further requested that he be granted a 30 percent loss of vision award.
{¶ 14} 4. In support of his motion, relator provided the results of an eye examination performed by Dr. Thomas B. Dankworth and a C-9 signed by Dr. Dankworth dated March 13, 2001. Dr. Dankworth noted that relator's right pupil was distorted from the injury and scars were found in the retina as well as the beginning of a traumatic cataract which he opined was related to the industrial injury. Dr. Dankworth noted further that vision in relator's right eye was 20/50¯.
{¶ 15} 5. Relator was also examined by Dr. Leonard Jacobson on June 7, 2002, at the request of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC"). Dr. Jacobson opined that, without correction, relator's vision in his right eye was 20/80¯, and that this corresponded to an 18 percent loss of vision of the right eye. Dr. Jacobson noted further that the traumatic cataract was directly related to the industrial injury.
{¶ 16} 6. Relator's motion was heard before a district hearing officer ("DHO") on July 23, 2002, and resulted in an order amending his claim to include "traumatic cataract right eye," but denied relator's request for compensation as follows:
The District Hearing Officer finds that the claimant has suffered a[n] 18% loss of vision in the right eye as a result of the industrial accident of 12-3-96 based on the report of Dr. Jacobson.
However, the claimant is not eligible to receive an award for loss of vision pursuant to Ohio Revised Code
The District Hearing Officer finds that the claimant relies on the report of Dr. Dankworth dated 8-24-00 to establish that the claimant has suffered a 30% loss of vision.
The District Hearing Officer finds that the medical evidence from Dr. Dankworth does not establish a 30% loss of vision. Rather, Dr. Dankworth indicates that the claimant has an uncorrected vision of 20/50 [sic] which equals only to a 23.5 loss of vision based on the Industrial Commission loss of vision chart.
The claimant argues that the claimant is entitled to an award for the total loss of vision pursuant to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation policy.
Specifically, the claimant argues that the fact that his claim is allowed for a traumatic cataract entitles the claimant to an award for the total loss of vision of the right eye.
The District Hearing Officer rejects this argument.
The District Hearing Officer finds that the Bureau of Workers' Compensation policy cited to does not constitute legal authority for the granting of the requested award.
Further, the medical evidence does not indicate that the claimant suffered the total loss of vision in his right eye prior to his corrective surgery.
{¶ 17} 7. Relator appealed and the matter was heard before a staff hearing officer ("SHO") on September 9, 2002. The SHO modified the prior DHO order. The SHO determined that relator's claim should be additionally allowed for "traumatic cataract of right eye" and further denied relator's request for loss of vision in his right eye under R.C.
The Staff Hearing Officer finds that the claimant has suffered a loss of vision in right eye of less than 30% as a result of the industrial injury on 12-3-96 based on [the] report of Dr. Jacobson. The Staff Hearing Officer finds that the claimant is not eligible to receive an award pursuant to Ohio Revised Code
This order is based on [the] report of Dr. Jacobson.
The decision of [the] District Hearing Officer dated 7-26-02 is affirmed in all other respects.
{¶ 18} 8. Further appeal was refused by order of the commission mailed October 3, 2002.
{¶ 19} 9. Thereafter, relator filed the instant mandamus action in this court. Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 20} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus as a remedy from a determination of the commission, relator must show that she has a clear legal right to the relief sought and that the commission has a clear legal duty to provide such relief. State ex rel. Pressley v.Indus. Comm. (1967),
{¶ 21} In this mandamus action, relator asserts that the commission abused its discretion in not granting him a 30 percent loss of vision award, as well as an award for total loss of vision of his right eye, and that the commission applied the incorrect standard in determining his loss of vision award. For the reasons that follow, this magistrate finds that relator's arguments are not well-taken.
{¶ 22} An award for loss of vision as a percentage of permanent partial disability ("PPD") is provided for in R.C.
For the loss of the sight of an eye, one hundred twenty-five weeks.
For the permanent partial loss of sight of an eye, the portion of one hundred twenty-five weeks as the administrator in each case determines, based upon the percentage of vision actually lost as a result of the injury or occupational disease, but, in no case shall an award of compensation be made for less than twenty-five per cent loss of uncorrected vision. "Loss of uncorrected vision" means the percentage of vision actually lost as the result of the injury or occupational disease.
{¶ 23} As indicated above, relator needed to establish at least a 25 percent loss of uncorrected vision before he would be entitled to any PPD compensation under R.C.
{¶ 24} Relator also contends that he is eligible for a total loss of vision award pursuant to State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Stover (1987),
{¶ 25} In Kroger, the claimant had sustained severe burns and scaring to his corneas as a result of an industrial injury and underwent a corneal transplant to his right eye in 1979. The court noted that, following the successful transplant, the claimant had some vision with glasses provided there was bright light. However, the court noted that the evidence showed that, on a cloudy or rainy day, or in twilight or dawn light, the claimant was not able to see more than six feet even after the corneal transplant. Id. at 234, fn. 5. Furthermore, the claimant had not attempted a transplant for the left eye and the court observed that the record included evidence that rejection of a donated cornea was possible.
{¶ 26} The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the commission's award of PPD compensation under former R.C.
{¶ 27} For years, this court continued to apply the rationale fromKroger, and found that, where a claimant showed that he had lost his vision due to a cataract and required corneal transplant surgery, the commission was to consider the claimant's vision prior to the corneal transplant in making its determination under the statute. However, recently, in General Electric, this court adopted the magistrate's decision and found that cataract surgery eliminates any actual permanent loss of vision suffered as a result of an industrial injury. In doing so, this court recognized the advances in eye surgery since Kroger was decided in 1987.
{¶ 28} In the present case, relator requests that this court do two things: (1) consider that he had a total loss of vision prior to the reattachment of his retina; and (2) consider that he will have a total loss of vision because it has been established that he has a cataract. This magistrate disagrees.
{¶ 29} First, surgery to reattach a retina has never been utilized to warrant an award for total loss of vision in an eye. Relator can point to no case where such an award was made because none exist. Reattaching a retina has never been considered on equal footing with replacement of a cornea and, as the record shows, there is a 90 percent chance that the surgery will be successful. As such, the commission did not abuse its discretion in considering, as relator's uncorrected vision, the vision that he had following the surgery to reattach his retina.
{¶ 30} The question then comes down to whether or not relator presented evidence that, following the reattachment of his retina, relator had demonstrated that there was a 100 percent loss of vision or, at least, greater than a 25 percent loss of vision, due to the fact that his claim had now been allowed for "traumatic cataract right eye." This magistrate finds that it does not.
{¶ 31} The record shows that relator has the beginning of a cataract in his right eye. The cataract has not advanced to such a stage that it has reduced his vision enough to warrant an award for PPD compensation. Because this magistrate finds that the commission did not abuse its discretion in considering the difference between relator's vision following the reattachment of his retina and his current vision, the report of Dr. Jacobson remains "some evidence" upon which the commission could rely. In that report, Dr. Jacobson opined that relator had an 18 percent loss of vision in his right eye. Inasmuch as 18 percent is less than 25 percent, the commission had some evidence before it upon which it relied in denying his award for compensation under R.C.
{¶ 32} Based on the foregoing, it is this magistrate's decision that relator has not demonstrated that the commission abused its discretion in denying his application for an award of PPD compensation for either a 25 percent loss of vision of his right eye or a total loss of vision of his right eye and relator's request for a writ of mandamus should be denied.
/s/ Stephanie Bisca Brooks STEPHANIE BISCA BROOKS MAGISTRATE