Ohio: Refusing Rehab Services Does Not Result in Loss of PTD Benefits

An Ohio appellate court held that where medical factors alone precluded an injured worker from enjoying sustained remunerative employment, there was no practical purpose for the Commission to consider non-medical factors such as vocational rehabilitation or the worker’s refusal of such rehabilitation services. Agreeing with the employer that under some circumstances, the worker’s refusal of vocational rehabilitation services could constitute voluntary abandonment of the workforce, the appellate court held that here such a refusal did not work to disqualify the worker from additional benefits.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See State ex rel. Heinen’s, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n of Ohio, 2019-Ohio-4690, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4765 (Nov. 14, 2019)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.