In a decision issued earlier this month, State ex rel. Kurtz v. Indus. Comm., 2026-Ohio-824 (10th Dist.), Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals built upon a hot topic in workers’ compensation law – the Dillon doctrine and the proper date for termination of temporary total disability (TTD) compensation. As we discussed in March of 2024 (see here), the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Dillon v. Indus. Comm., 2024-Ohio-744 overruled decades of precedent and established a new framework for the termination of TTD compensation. For years, TTD compensation was terminated as of the date of the Industrial Commission hearing where the termination finding was made. After Dillon, TTD is instead terminated as of the date that a maximum medical improvement (MMI) finding is made by a physician (i.e., the date of the MMI report).

Case Background

Similar to Dillon, the Kurtz case involved the proper termination date for TTD compensation and whether recoupment of amounts overpaid by a self-insured employer or the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) can be recouped pursuant to R.C. 4123.511(K), which provides in pertinent part that:

“[I]f a claimant is found to have received compensation pursuant to a prior order which is reversed upon subsequent appeal, the claimant’s employer, if a self-insuring employer, or the bureau, shall withhold from any amount to which the claimant becomes entitled … the amount of previously paid compensation to the claimant which, due to reversal upon appeal, the claimant is not entitled[.]”

The facts of the Kurtz case are even more straightforward than those in Dillon. In Kurtz, the injured worker suffered a work-related injury in April of 2023. The claim was allowed for several sprain conditions and Kurtz was awarded TTD compensation in relation to the injury. Approximately nine months later, in January of 2024, the BWC requested a termination of Kurtz’s TTD compensation on the basis that she had reached MMI with regard to the allowed conditions. Kurtz was subsequently examined by an independent physician who authored a report (dated March 18, 2024) making an MMI finding. Relying on the report, a District Hearing Officer (DHO) of the Ohio Industrial Commission – in an order dated April 9, 2024 – granted the BWC’s request and terminated Kurtz’s TTD compensation effective March 18, 2024 (the date of the physician’s report).  Relying on Dillon, the DHO also ordered that any TTD compensation paid after March 18, 2024 be considered overpaid and subject to the recoupment provisions of R.C. 4123.511(K). Kurtz appealed, but a Staff Hearing Officer (SHO) affirmed the DHO order. When the Industrial Commission refused Kurtz’s further appeal, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Kurtz’s Arguments on Appeal

Kurtz’s argument on appeal was twofold: (1) TTD compensation should be terminated on the date of the Industrial Commission hearing making the MMI finding rather than the date of the physician’s report (the pre-Dillon rule); and (2) any overpaid compensation issued after March 18, 2024 is not subject to recoupment under R.C. 4123.511(K).  The Tenth District rejected the first argument but agreed with the second.

TTD Termination Date Analysis

As for the date of TTD termination, the Tenth District found the Dillon decision dispositive of the issue and held that March 18, 2024 – the date of the physician’s report making the MMI finding – was the proper TTD termination date. Kurtz argued that the facts of Dillon are meaningfully distinguishable because Dillon involved a different procedural posture; in particular, TTD compensation in Dillon was initially awarded by the DHO and that finding was subsequently reversed by the SHO, whereas both the DHO and SHO granted the BWC’s request to terminate TTD. The Tenth District acknowledged the procedural differences but concluded they did not affect “the fundamental question” of the proper date for TTD termination.

Recoupment and Scope of R.C. 4123.511(K)

As to the recoupment question, the Tenth District could not overlook the procedural differences. The court reasoned that while R.C. 4123.511(K) applied to the facts of Dillon, it does not apply to Kurtz’s claim. Dillon involved what the court described as a “straight‑line appeal” scenario, in which a DHO granted an initial TTD request and, on appeal, an SHO reversed the award and declared an overpayment. By contrast, Kurtz involved DHO and SHO orders granting the BWC’s request to terminate ongoing TTD, not a reversal of a prior award on appeal. Citing R.C. 4123.511(K), the Tenth District reasoned that the plain language of the statute limits its application to “a very specific situation: when ‘a claimant is found to have received compensation pursuant to a prior order which is reversed upon subsequent appeal.’” That did not happen in Kurtz’s claim. Accordingly, the Tenth District held that R.C. 4123.511(K) applies only to recoupment of overpayments that result from a straight-line appeal as opposed to Industrial Commission orders terminating TTD at the BWC’s or employer’s request.

Next Steps for Employers

Going forward, employers and the BWC should continue to seek termination of TTD effective the IME date, but the recoupment mechanism set forth in R.C. 4123.511(K) is not available even if the Industrial Commission grants the request. However, that does not mean that employees can keep the money free and clear. Employers can still use the overpayment as a bargaining chip in settlement negotiations to help drive a lower settlement figure.

An enormous question looms large: if R.C. 4123.511(K) is not available in these situations, how can a self-insured employer or the BWC recoup TTD amounts that have been overpaid to a claimant? Unfortunately, the Tenth District’s decision does not answer that question. The court declined to address this specific question because it was not at issue in the appeal.

It will be interesting to see if this decision is appealed to and accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court, and if so, whether the Supreme Court will address the issue of how a self-insured employer or the BWC may recoup overpayments when a request for TTD termination is granted by the Industrial Commission. As always, Taft’s Workers’ Compensation practice group will keep you apprised of pertinent updates going forward, and please feel free to contact us with any questions.