State ex rel. Lampkins v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a writ concerning an Industrial Commission order addressing the extent of disability and payment for prescribed drugs. The court held that the claimant received adequate notice because the matter involved the extent of disability rather than a disputed claim regarding initial claim allowability, and it noted that the Commission retained continuing jurisdiction to modify prior orders.

Holdings

1. Because Lampkins's claim had already been initially recognized and allowed, and the appeals concerned only the extent of disability, there was no disputed claim within the meaning of R.C. 4123.518 requiring the specified opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
2. The notice was not legally inadequate because the statutory opportunity-to-be-heard provisions invoked by Lampkins applied only to disputed claims, and this was not a disputed claim.
3. Lampkins was not necessarily permanently foreclosed from seeking allowance for the prescribed drugs because the Industrial Commission retains continuing jurisdiction to modify or change prior findings and orders when justified.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Industrial Commission proceedings involved a disputed claim requiring the notice and opportunity-to-be-heard protections of R.C. 4123.515 and 4123.518.
2. Whether the August 14, 1981 order was invalid because Lampkins allegedly lacked adequate notice that payment for prescribed drugs would be considered.
3. Whether Lampkins was permanently barred from seeking allowance for the prescribed drugs addressed in the Commission's order.

Disposition

affirmed