Background
Andre C. Tanyhill worked as a corrections officer for Central Ohio Behavioral Healthcare. On November 13, 2022, a patient attacked him, striking him multiple times in the head and face. As a result, Tanyhill sustained several eye injuries including left eye conjunctival hemorrhage, retinal tears, and a retinal hole. He underwent laser retinopexy surgery and ultimately his workers’ compensation claim was allowed for these injuries as well as related conditions including concussion and head trauma.
Following treatment and some recovery, Tanyhill’s corrected visual acuity improved to normal range (20/20 or better). However, on December 5, 2023, he sought additional scheduled-loss benefits under R.C. 4123.57(B) for partial loss of uncorrected vision. This claim turned on a critical distinction: whether his vision loss—measured without glasses or contacts—resulted from the work injury or from pre-existing myopia (nearsightedness) for which he had worn glasses since his teens.
The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation initially approved scheduled-loss compensation based on medical evidence showing 25 percent uncorrected vision loss. The employer appealed, and the Industrial Commission’s staff hearing officer vacated the award, finding the claimant had not met his burden of proof. Tanyhill then filed a mandamus petition seeking reversal.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition and adopted the magistrate’s decision. The court held that Tanyhill failed to establish a clear legal right to scheduled-loss benefits and that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the award. The critical issue was whether Tanyhill proved loss of uncorrected vision—a statutory term meaning vision lost solely as a result of the injury, measured without correction by glasses, contacts, or non-injury-related surgery.
The court found fatal defects in the claimant’s medical evidence. Dr. Armstrong-Murphy, the claimant’s expert, never actually tested Tanyhill’s post-injury uncorrected vision; instead, she made assumptions without adequate documentation. She acknowledged that post-injury uncorrected visual acuity “has not been tested at the ophthalmologist” and recommended such testing be performed. The employer’s expert, Dr. Mattson, testified that Tanyhill’s uncorrected vision of 20/100 in each eye was consistent with his pre-existing myopia and that there was no uncorrected vision loss attributable to the injury.
The court reasoned that to establish a claim for partial loss of sight under the statute, a claimant must submit credible medical evidence showing the degree of visual impairment—specifically, the difference between pre-injury and post-injury uncorrected vision. Even if Dr. Mattson’s opinion were excluded entirely, the claimant pointed to no other evidence establishing entitlement to the benefits. Tanyhill’s corrected visual acuity remained in the normal range post-injury, and he failed to meet his burden of proving that his uncorrected vision loss resulted from the allowed conditions rather than his pre-existing refractive error.
Key Takeaways
- Scheduled-loss vision compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) requires proof of “loss of uncorrected vision”—measured without glasses, contacts, or non-injury-related surgery—not merely loss of corrected visual acuity.
- Pre-existing refractive errors such as myopia cannot be attributed to a work injury even if the injury causes additional ocular trauma; the claimant must distinguish between pre-existing and injury-related vision loss.
- Medical evidence must establish both pre-injury and post-injury uncorrected visual acuity through testing; assumptions or lack of documentation are insufficient to meet the claimant’s burden of proof.
- The Industrial Commission applies the “some evidence” test when reviewing factual determinations; mandamus lies only if no evidence supports the decision or if the commission misinterprets the law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict evidentiary requirements for workers seeking scheduled-loss vision benefits in Ohio. Many workers have pre-existing refractive errors, and this ruling clarifies that work-related eye injuries—even serious ones—do not automatically entitle them to scheduled-loss compensation if the vision loss cannot be distinguished from their baseline uncorrected vision. Practitioners pursuing such claims must ensure that medical experts actually measure uncorrected visual acuity both before and after injury and explain how the injury-related loss differs from pre-existing refractive conditions.
The decision also illustrates the court’s deference to the Industrial Commission’s evaluation of conflicting medical testimony. Because the claimant’s own expert acknowledged gaps in her analysis and the employer’s expert provided a credible alternative explanation for the vision measurements, the commission’s rejection of the claim was upheld. Workers’ compensation practitioners should view this as a caution: incomplete medical records or testimony, even from treating physicians, will not overcome employer challenges when competing expert opinion exists and the statutory burden of proof has not been clearly met.