Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Vansuch v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 10, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

83 Ohio St. 3d 558; 1998 WL 754360

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Riley v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (8-25-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State ex rel. Reliance Electric Co. v. Wright (Ohio 2001)
State ex rel. Montevideo v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State Ex Rel. Cliff v. Auburndale Co., Unpublished Decision (8-4-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State Ex Rel. Grimes Aerospace v. I.C., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Industrial Commission, Unpublished Decision (11-30-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Vansuch v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in Justice Cook’s dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 194, 196-197, 652 N.E.2d 753, 755-756. This claimant is not eligible for benefits for permanent total disability (“PTD”) according to this court’s guidelines in State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 202, 631 N.E.2d 138, paragraph two of the syllabus. Vansuch voluntarily retired from the workforce more than ten years prior to his application for PTD benefits and never reentered the job market. While he may have a valid medical reason for seeking PTD benefits, he has abandoned the job market and therefore has no loss of future wages. Thus, he has no basis for receiving PTD benefits. See State ex rel. Liposchak, 73 Ohio St.3d at 197, 652 N.E.2d at 756 (Cook, J., dissenting).

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The issue presented today was decided previously in State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 194, 652 N.E.2d 753. We find that the court of appeals correctly applied Liposchak in this case, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of that court.

Judgment affirmed.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.