Interim Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, John Logue, spoke as a witness in front of the Ohio House Insurance Committee on February 24, 2021. His prepared statement is available on the Ohio Legislature’s website. His conclusion was as follows:
“We have reduced rates and returned dividends to Ohio employers of more than $15 billion over the last decade – this includes at least $9.2 billion since 2019.
We truly want to be a partner in the economic success of our state and want to do all we can to keep costs as low as possible for our employers, while maintaining the best workers’ comp services this country has to offer. Our strong financial position allows us to issue dividends, cut rates, and provide grant opportunities to assist employers with maintaining a safe workplace. We will continue to practice sound fiscal management to ensure we can pay workers’ comp claims, provide cost savings to employers, and position BWC as an economic asset to Ohio.”
Although Mr. Logue makes a reference to “maintaining a safe workplace,” it is clear that his focus is not on the injured workers’ in Ohio, but on minimizing cost to employers and operating as an “economic asset” to the state.
***
House Bill 75 is the BWC budget bill. OAJ Workers’ Compensation Chair Troy Duffy reported to OAJ members that several amendments had been proposed that would potentially limit loss of use payments in death claims, and result in forfeiture of loss of use payments (due to family members) upon death of the injured worker. Mr. Duffy reported that the status of these amendments was changing daily and that the situation was fluid.
***
Few cases of note in the area of Workers’ Compensation have been decided by Ohio’s appellate courts/Supreme Court in the past several months. Perhaps most instructive is Webster v. Altenloh Brinck & Co., U.S., Inc., et al., 2021-Ohio-1072. Therein, the Sixth Appellate District considered the nature of the diagnosis of “closed head injury.” The Plaintiff’s medical expert, a chiropractor, supported the diagnosis of closed head injury, but made no reference in her testimony to reliance on any examination findings or reports of symptoms by the injured worker. There was additional layperson testimony as to the mechanism of injury. The court found the Plaintiff/injured worker failed to satisfy her burden of producing sufficient medical testimony to support the diagnosis of her chiropractor. It thus found the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
