Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that cataract surgery and intraocular lens implants constituted correction of vision rather than restoration for purposes of a scheduled-loss award under R.C. 4123.57(B). Because the statute uses uncorrected vision as the applicable standard, the court concluded that the claimant remained entitled to an award for total loss of vision and reversed the court of appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 4123.57(B) requires the Industrial Commission to evaluate loss of sight using uncorrected vision.
- Whether bilateral cataract surgery and intraocular lens implants constituted restorative recovery rather than corrective treatment for purposes of a scheduled-loss award.
- Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by awarding total loss of vision compensation despite the claimant's postsurgical visual improvement.
Holdings
- R.C. 4123.57(B) makes uncorrected vision the applicable standard for determining a scheduled-loss award and bars consideration of correction to vision in determining either entitlement or the amount of the award.
- On the record before the court, cataract surgery and intraocular lens implants remained corrective rather than restorative treatment and therefore did not eliminate the claimant's statutory loss of vision.
- The court of appeals erred in reclassifying corneal lens implants as restorative on the basis of medical advances not established in the record; the statutory scheme remained controlling.
Key quotations
“The statute bars the commission from considering a correction to vision either in making an award or in assessing an amount.” (422)
“In this case, R.C. 4123.57(B) clearly makes uncorrected vision the applicable standard.” (427)
“The court of appeals in this case felt that the time had arrived to reclassify corneal lens implants as restorative. We do not agree and accordingly reverse its judgment.” (427)
Factual background
In 1996, Randall D. Ross suffered an electrical shock at work that caused cataracts and reduced his vision from presumed 20/20 to 20/200. He later underwent bilateral cataract surgery and received intraocular lens implants, which improved his vision. The Industrial Commission nevertheless awarded compensation for total loss of vision under R.C. 4123.57(B), treating the postsurgical improvement as correction rather than restoration.
Procedural history
The Industrial Commission awarded Ross compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) for total loss of vision in both eyes after a workplace electrical shock caused cataracts and reduced his vision to 20/200. General Electric filed a mandamus action alleging that the Commission abused its discretion. The Franklin County Court of Appeals concluded that cataract surgery and intraocular lens implants had become restorative rather than merely corrective and foreclosed the award. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed.