State ex rel. Motakentta v. Indus. Comm. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. MOTAKENTTA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF
OHIO, APPELLEE, ET AL.
[Cite as State ex rel. Motakentta v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Workers' compensation -- Benefits -- R.C. 4123.56(B), applied -- Wage-loss
compensation properly terminated by Bureau of Workers' Compensation
when two-hundred-week limit in R.C. 4123.56(B) is reached.
(No. 95-1582 -- Submitted March 25, 1998 -- Decided April 15, 1998.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD06-825.
__________________

Elliott, Heller, Maas, Moro & Magill Co., L.P.A., and C. Douglas Ames, for
appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Melanie Cornelius, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
__________________

Per Curiam. Selah D. Motakentta, appellant, sought a writ of mandamus
directing appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, (1) to vacate its order declaring
an overpayment in the wage-loss compensation he had received, and (2) to pay
him wage-loss compensation up to the statutory maximum in R.C. 4123.56(B)
without any offset for wage-loss compensation paid to him in error. The Franklin
County Court of Appeals denied the writ, holding that the Ohio Bureau of
Workers' Compensation ("BWC") properly calculated the statutory maximum by
accounting for all the wage-loss compensation Motakentta had received. We
affirm.

Motakentta was injured in 1987 while working for the Velotta Company
("Velotta"), and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for "torn muscles,
left rib cage; traumatic myositis dorsal lumbar spine; contusion and intercostal

neuritis, left side." In April 1989, a commission district hearing officer ("DHO")
ordered payment of wage-loss compensation to Motakentta starting from January
23, 1989 and to continue, up to the statutory two-hundred-week maximum, as long
as Motakentta could show a wage loss attributable to his allowed conditions.

Velotta appealed administratively without success and then challenged the
wage-loss order by an action in mandamus. In State ex rel. Velotta Co. v. Indus.
Comm. (July 23, 1991), Franklin App. No. 90AP-769, the court of appeals granted
a writ of mandamus directing the commission to prepare a new order that either
granted or denied wage-loss compensation and that specified the reasons for its
decision. In compliance, the commission referred the claim to another DHO, who
heard the matter on November 12, 1991. That DHO terminated Motakentta's
wage-loss compensation, finding that he had not produced sufficient evidence to
justify the payments he had already received. Motakentta did not appeal.

In February 1992, Motakentta applied for a new period of wage-loss
compensation to commence on November 13, 1991 and to continue upon
submission of appropriate proof. In April 1992, a DHO granted Motakentta's
second application. Velotta appealed this order administratively and called the
commission's attention to the "[w]age [l]oss overpayment" for the period
commencing on January 23, 1989. The commission did not disturb the award for
the subsequent period of wage-loss compensation that began on November 13,
1991.

BWC apparently paid Motakentta wage-loss compensation pursuant to this
award, but it ceased payments as of January 22, 1993, when he reached the two-
hundred-week maximum in R.C. 4123.56(B). In August 1993, Motakentta moved
BWC to recommence payments, but the BWC administrator denied the motion.
On Motakentta's appeal, a DHO affirmed the administrator's decision. On

2

Motakentta's further appeal, a commission staff hearing officer reversed and
granted wage-loss compensation on this basis:

"It is the finding of the Staff Hearing Officer that Wage Loss Compensation
paid from 1-23-89 to 4-19-89 was denied by District Hearing Officer Order dated
11-12-91. The Staff Hearing Officer finds that while said denial resulted in the
overpayment of monies to the Claimant, no Wage Loss Compensation has been
awarded to the Claimant and the Claimant is entitled to request Wage Loss
Compensation pursuant to Section 4123.56 Ohio Revised Code and orders that the
number of weeks in this denied period not be calculated as weeks of Wage Loss
Compensation paid to the Claimant for purposes of determining the Claimant's
eligibility for any other periods of Wage Loss.

"However, the Staff Hearing Officer further orders that any monies paid to
the Claimant for this denied period be deemed an overpayment and deducted from
any future awards of compensation." (Emphasis sic.)

Motakentta appealed again, objecting to the staff hearing officer's finding
that the wage-loss compensation he received between January 23, 1989 and the
DHO hearing on November 12, 1991 constituted an overpayment to be set off
against subsequently awarded wage loss, apparently pursuant to R.C. 4123.511(J).
The commission, through another staff hearing officer, refused Motakentta's
appeal, prompting this action in mandamus.

The court of appeals denied the writ because Motakentta had reached the
two-hundred-week wage-loss compensation limit in R.C. 4123.56(B). R.C.
4123.56(B) provides:

"Where an employee in a claim allowed under this chapter suffers a wage
loss as a result of returning to employment other than his former position of
employment or as a result of being unable to find employment consistent with the

3

claimant's physical capabilities, he shall receive compensation at sixty-six and two
thirds per cent of his weekly wage loss not to exceed the statewide average weekly
wage for a period not to exceed two hundred weeks." (Emphasis added.)

Contrary to Motakentta's argument, the period for calculating the statutory
maximum under this statute does not begin anew with each additional period for
which a claimant may qualify for wage-loss compensation. Rather, a claimant is
entitled to two hundred weeks of wage-loss compensation only for each allowed
industrial injury claim. Moreover, the statutory maximum is expressly based on
the wage-loss compensation received by the claimant. There is no exception for
wage-loss compensation received in good faith or wage-loss compensation that
was ultimately "unawarded" to the claimant pursuant to a successful employer
challenge.

Only one industrial injury claim has been recognized in this case, and
Motakentta does not dispute that he has received two hundred weeks of wage-loss
compensation based on commission orders arising from this single claim. For
these reasons, BWC properly terminated his wage-loss compensation, and the
court of appeals so found. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals denying the requested writ of mandamus.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

4