20 Ohio App. 3d 300 - Rose v. Mayfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]rguably, the operation and ultimate effect of this provision will be that not every claimant will receive the same total percentage of permanent partial disability benefits prior to the invocation of the one hundred percent maximum cut-off period. However, there is no way the state could equalize such benefits. The state has, however, applied the one hundred percent maximum to all claimants. In this respect, plaintiff is treated no differently than any other person attempting to claim the benefits of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stalker v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (3-11-2004)

2. “[t]he state of Ohio has a legitimate interest in maintaining the level of benefits payable to injured workers. The Workers' Compensation Fund is a self-supporting system in that it is funded by employers based upon a percentage of the employer's payroll. To open the state fund to an unlimited amount of permanent partial disability compensation would undermine the actuarial soundness of the system as well as upset the balance between the rights, duties, obligations and benefits of employers and employees.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stalker v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (3-11-2004)