The ohio supreme court held that even though the compensation could have been paid without an application, the catastrophically brain damaged claimant should have filed an application. Since, he did not file an application, he was not entitled to the compensation. The state ex rel. estate of Sziraki v. Administrator of the bureau of workers’ compensation, 137 Ohio st.3d 201, 2013-ohio-4007.

Sziraki was injured in a car crash while on the job, suffering catastrophic injuries to his brain and spinal cord, leaving him in a near vegetative state. Under Worker’s Compensation when one loses the function of and arm or leg by amputation or otherwise, one gets compensation for a number of weeks according to a schedule set by statute. It is a given. The statute prices out various bodily members. Sziraki lost the use of his arms and legs due to the injury.

Sziraki apparently did not have an attorney so no application was filed for the scheduled loss compensation. Eventually a guardian was appointed. The Bureau agreed that to pay the compensation, no application was necessary, and that it knew of his condition, but “Catch 22,” it had discretion to pay or not pay the compensation without an application.

Can someone explain how a person who has a catastrophic brain injury can file an application? So the Bureau claims examiner can play dice in deciding what to pay and what not to pay. Here the claims examiner decided to not pay.

The Supreme Court said that was okay.

Another victory for an injured worker.

When Sziraki died, the family got an attorney who realized Sziraki had not received the benefits to which he was entitled. So “Catch 23″ then applied. Catch 23 is a statute that says that a compensation arrearage can only be paid back for 2 years, 104 weeks of compensation, rather than the 850 to which he was entitled.

In the words of Chief Justice O’Connor, dissenting

“Rather than reinforcing the bureau’s dereliction of its duty by affirming this judgment, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, grant a writ of mandamus, and order the commission to award the full 850 weeks of scheduled-loss benefits, not just the 104 weeks that were awarded because of the statute of limitations. I would do this not to benefit the relatives of Dean Sziraki but to ensure that the welfare of future participants in the workers’ compensation system will not be jeopardized by the system’s inaction in the face of a clear duty.”