Ohio Claimant’s Vision Loss May Not Be Judged Merely by Snellen Fraction Differentials
In order to establish entitlement to an award for permanent partial loss of sight under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.57(B), a workers’ compensation claimant must submit medical evidence showing the degree of visual impairment based upon the percentage of vision actually lost; he or she may not simply introduce evidence of his so-called “Snellen fraction” readings (claimant’s right-eye preinjury visual acuity was 20/20 and his postinjury acuity in that same eye was 20/100) [State ex rel. Beyer v. Autoneum N. Am., 2019-Ohio-3714, 2019 Ohio LEXIS 1823 (Sept. 17, 2019)].
Background
At a hearing on the issue of permanent partial disability in the form of loss of vision, claimant introduced medical reports indicating his visual-acuity value— his “Snellen fraction”—both before and after his industrial injury. Prior to injury, claimant’s right eye Snellen fraction was 20/20, and afterwards it had deteriorated to 20/100. The hearing officer looked to Table 12-2 in the AMA Guides and found that uncorrected vision of 20/100 represented a 35 percent loss in visual acuity. Based on that finding, the hearing officer found that claimant had suffered a 35 percent loss of vision in the right eye.
Commission’s Findings
A commission staff hearing officer (SHO) vacated the hearing officer’s order, finding that the record did not contain sufficient medical evidence to substantiate it. Specifically, the SHO found that the record lacked an explanation by a qualified physician that would support the 35 percent vision loss that claimant alleged. The commission rejected claimant’s appeal of the SHO’s order and rejected his attempt to submit new evidence, finding that the evidence was available at the time of the original adjudication.
Court of Appeals Sides with Claimant
Claimant appealed and the Court of Appeals (Tenth District) agreed with claimant that the DHO had properly applied Table 12-2 of the AMA Guides to the medical evidence showing claimant’s preinjury and postinjury visual acuity and that the SHO had erred by finding that claimant failed to submit medical evidence establishing the percentage of vision lost.
Supreme Court Reverses
The Supreme Court agreed that claimant had presented medical evidence of his pre-injury and post injury visual acuity in the form of Snellen fractions (20/20 and 20/100, respectively). The Court stressed that this was not, however, evidence reflecting a physician’s determination of claimant’s degree of impairment. Rather, it was evidence from which claimant contended the commission could determine the degree of impairment. The Court said the commission correctly refused to step into the role reserved for medical experts, and the Tenth District erred by finding that the commission abused its discretion.
Earlier, the Court had noted that a Snellen fraction does not indicate a percentage of visual acuity. Indeed, visual acuity is only one component of total vision, which also can be affected by losses in, for example, visual field and ocular motility. Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District’s decision.