Ohio court denies permanent disability for worker’s physical/psych condition

The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed a divided appellate court decision that granted a delivery driver permanent disability over its assessment that an Ohio Industrial Commission hearing officer failed to consider all documentation of the man’s physical and psychological state when ruling he could continue to work.

As documented in 2025 Ohio 3009, the man suffered a work injury in 2006 while unloading packages as a delivery driver for Wano Expiditing. His workers compensation claim was allowed for both physical and psychological conditions, which included several herniated discs, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, lumbar conditions, and joint disease. Over the ensuing years, he underwent four back surgeries but continued to experience back and leg pain and has not worked outside the home since his injury.

The state’s highest court said the hearing officer with the commission complied with state law
“by considering claimant’s psychological as well as physical conditions before concluding that he could engage in sustained remunerative employment” with some restrictions.

The latest ruling provided a rundown of the medical documentation, some of which concluded that the man could work in some capacity, albeit “sedentary.” As one doctor opined, “He would need a position with low stress, to prevent him from getting overwhelmed. He would need the ability to take breaks from coworkers, customers, or tasks when feeling overwhelmed, requiring an environment to which he could escape and take a break, such as 30 minutes, or switch to a task in another area that removes him from the source of stress.”

The worker submitted into evidence documentation from a vocational consultant, who concluded that “an employer was unlikely to accommodate the restrictions in… (the) report and that due to (his) physical conditions and depressive disorder, he had not retained the capacity to engage in any sustained remunerative employment and was ‘100% totally unemployable.’”

The state’s Tenth District Court of Appeals had reversed the commission hearing officer’s assessment, finding that the ruling failed to document as consideration all the evidence presented.

The state’s highest court, in turn, wrote that state law “does not require a hearing officer to identify every recommended restriction in a medical report that the hearing officer relies on” when assessing a worker’s ability to go back to work.