The Tenth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the Industrial Commission of Ohio’s (the Commission) decision to deny Alisa L. Williams’ request for continued Temporary Total Disability (TTD) compensation, despite a recent addition of a specific back condition to her claim. The Court found that the Commission did not abuse its discretion because there was “some evidence” in the record to support its denial, and Williams failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the benefits.
The case centers on Williams’ attempt to reinstate TTD payments starting September 22, 2023, following the termination of prior benefits when she was found to have reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) the day before. Her request was based, in part, on the subsequent allowance of a bulging disc at the L5-S1 level in her claim.
The Core Dispute: New Circumstances and TTD Eligibility
Williams last worked in October 2021 and was receiving TTD benefits until September 21, 2023, when a doctor found she had reached MMI. She later sought to restart TTD benefits, arguing that the allowance of the L5-S1 bulging disc condition constituted a “new and changed circumstance” warranting continued disability payments.
The Court’s analysis hinged on established workers’ compensation law, which dictates that for the Commission to modify a prior order regarding TTD after an MMI finding, the claimant must show new and changed circumstances that prevent a return to work.
The Court, adopting the magistrate’s findings, disagreed with Williams on two main points raised in her objections: the existence of new and changed circumstances, and the reliance on a specific medical report.
Lack of Evidence for Worsening Condition
Williams argued that her medical focus shifted to her lower back only after the L5-S1 bulging disc was allowed in January 2024, suggesting this shift warranted TTD reinstatement retroactively to September 22, 2023.
However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive. The opinion noted that the requested start date of September 22, 2023, appeared arbitrary—simply the day after her last payment ended—with no corresponding medical documentation showing a change in her condition on that specific date.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Williams had already received treatment and testing for her lumbar area *before* the L5-S1 bulging disc was officially allowed. Specifically, records showed she had lumbar MRIs and received injections for L4-L5 and L5-S1 issues in 2022.
Even subsequent treatments, such as two lumbar epidural steroid injections in March and April 2024, provided no relief, leading the Court to conclude that Williams remained at a “treatment plateau” and that a change in treatment alone does not automatically prove an inability to return to her former job.
The Role of Dr. Yankush’s Report
The second major objection concerned the reliance placed by the Commission on the report of Dr. Thomas Yankush. Williams contended that Dr. Yankush’s opinion should not be considered “some evidence” because he allegedly failed to accept the new diagnosis of the L5-S1 bulging disc as related to the accident.
The Court clarified that Dr. Yankush’s report met the required legal standard established in *State ex rel. Wallace*. The *Wallace* standard requires a reviewing physician to accept the *factual findings* of the examining physicians but permits them to draw their own *conclusions* or *opinions*.
Dr. Yankush explicitly stated he accepted the objective findings of other providers regarding the allowed conditions, even if he disagreed with their ultimate medical opinions. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the requested TTD was a direct result of the injury, citing findings such as a mild disc bulge and a congenital anomaly contributing to her pain.
Because Dr. Yankush’s report provided a rational, evidence-based reason (even if contested by Williams’ providers) to deny TTD, the Commission was entitled to give it weight. The Court stressed that resolving factual disputes and weighing the credibility of evidence falls within the Commission’s discretion as the fact-finder.
Conclusion
In its final ruling, the Court overruled both of Williams’ objections, found that the magistrate correctly applied the law, and adopted the magistrate’s decision in full. Consequently, the request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to vacate its denial of TTD compensation was denied.