In Ward v. Kroger Co., 106 Ohio St.3d 35, 2005 Ohio 3560, 830 N.E.2d 1155, the employee filed a claim to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund for the conditions of right knee sprain and medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia of the right knee. Id. at P1. The commission denied the claim for medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia of the right knee. Id. The employee appealed the commission's decision to the common pleas court, but subsequently moved to amend his complaint to add the conditions of aggravation of pre-existing degenerative joint disease and aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis. Id. P2. The trial court granted the motion, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. Id. The jury found against the employee for the originally claimed condition, but found in his favor for the amended claims of aggravation of pre-existing degenerative joint disease and aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis. Id. at P3. The employer appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the scope of a trial court in an appeal under R.C. 4123.512 is limited to the condition ruled upon at the administrative level. Id. at P4. Upon a discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the employee argued that, under the holding in Robinson, a claimant was required to "'litigate all issues relating to the same body part in one proceeding or trial.'" Id. at P13. Thus, the employee asserted that it was imperative under Robinson to include his claim for aggravation conditions in his appeal to the common pleas court. Id. The Supreme Court disagreed. The court distinguished the holding in Robinson by noting that the claimant there sought allowance to add an aggravation of the same condition as he had originally claimed was directly caused by his accident. Id. at P14. In other words, the claimant in Robinson sought "the administrative allowance of an additional claim for the same injury to the same body part, but on a different theory." Id. In Ward, on the other hand, the employee sought to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund under his original claim for a condition different from the one added on appeal. Id. at P15. According to the court, because Robinson was inapplicable, the employee would be permitted to amend his original workers' compensation claim at the administrative level to include the additional conditions. Id. The Supreme Court utilized its decision in Ward to address the nature of an appeal brought under R.C. 4123.512. Specifically, it reviewed the issue of "whether the scope of an R.C. 4123.512 appeal is limited to the medical conditions addressed in the order from which the appeal is taken." Id. at P6. According to the court, "the requirement that workers' compensation claims be presented in the first instance for administrative determination is a necessary and inherent part of the overall adjudicative framework of the Workers' Compensation Act. Under R.C. 4123.512(A), 'the claimant or the employer may appeal an order of the industrial commission made under division (E) of section 4123.511 of the Revised Code in any injury or occupational disease case, other than a decision as to the extent of disability to the court of common pleas .' To this extent, the statute clearly contemplates the general nonappealability of commission orders and, in the case of claims for initial allowance, withholding judicial review until after the claim runs the gamut of successive administrative hearings provided for under R.C. 4123.511. "Allowing considerations of the right to participate for additional conditions to originate at the judicial level is inconsistent with this statutory scheme because it usurps the commission's authority as the initial adjudicator of claims and casts the common pleas court in the role of claims processor. The grant or denial of the right to participate for one injury or condition does not preclude a subsequent claim for participation in the fund based on another injury or condition arising out of the same industrial accident. But any such claim must be initiated before the Industrial Commission." Id. at P9-10.