Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Where a workers' compensation claimant’s medical evidence as to his vision loss consisted merely of so-called “Snellen fractions” computed both before and after his industrial injury, the claimant failed to establish his entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits for the alleged loss of vision, held an Ohio appellate court. Notwithstanding that Table 12-2 in the AMA Guides indicated that claimant had suffered a 35 percent loss in visual acuity in his right eye, based upon a pre-injury Snellen fraction of 20/20 and a post-injury fraction of 20/100, “visual acuity" and "loss of vision" were not the same thing. Other factors—e.g., visual field and ocular motility—were some of the additional factors to be considered. Moreover, since that evidence would have been available at the time of the original adjudication, it could not later be considered.
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. Beyer v. Autoneum N. Am., 2019-Ohio-3714, 2019 Ohio LEXIS 1823 (Sept. 17, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 86.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see