Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals and denied a writ of mandamus in a workers' compensation dispute. The court held that under the plain language of R.C. 4123.60, a surviving spouse is not entitled to scheduled-loss compensation when she fails to establish that the decedent would have been lawfully entitled to apply for such compensation a second time after his claim was previously denied. The decision emphasizes strict adherence to statutory language regarding dependent claims for compensation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a surviving spouse is entitled to scheduled‑loss compensation under R.C. 4123.60 when the decedent was not lawfully entitled to have applied for a second award of the same compensation.
- Whether the Tenth District Court of Appeals erred in applying the Supreme Court’s holding in State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm. to the decedent’s claim.
Holdings
- A surviving spouse is not entitled to scheduled‑loss compensation under R.C. 4123.60 unless the decedent would have been lawfully entitled to have applied for an award at the time of his death; the decedent was not lawfully entitled to apply a second time, so the spouse is ineligible.
- The Court of Appeals erred; its application of Smith was improper because the issue before the Commission was whether the decedent was lawfully entitled to have applied for a second award, not whether the loss was caused by brain injury.
Key quotations
“When the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, we must rely on what the General Assembly has said, and apply it as written.” (¶ 30)
“Byk is not entitled to compensation for the purported loss of use, and the commission has no clear legal duty to award that compensation.” (¶ 40)
Factual background
Bohdanus Byk sustained severe head injuries in a workplace accident in 2012, remained in a persistent vegetative state, and died in 2015. He sought scheduled‑loss compensation for loss of use of his bilateral upper and lower extremities, which was denied by the Industrial Commission in 2014. His surviving spouse, Pin Cha Byk, later filed a mandamus action seeking the same compensation as a dependent under R.C. 4123.60.
Procedural history
The Industrial Commission denied scheduled‑loss compensation to the decedent. The Tenth District Court of Appeals granted a limited writ of mandamus directing the Commission to vacate that denial and adjudicate the surviving spouse’s claim. The Commission and Republic Steel appealed as of right to the Ohio Supreme Court.