State ex rel. Abner v. Mayfield

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Abner v. Mayfield

583 N.E.2d 1311, 62 Ohio St. 3d 423, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 136

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 5, 1992

DocketNo. 90-1924

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 583 N.E.2d 1311 (State ex rel. Abner v. Mayfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Abner v. Mayfield, 583 N.E.2d 1311, 62 Ohio St. 3d 423, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 136 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are again asked to review the commission’s order for “some evidence” supporting its decision. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment below.

The commission’s exclusive focus on perceived deficiencies in claimant’s medical evidence is misdirected. The commission mistakenly believes, as stated in its brief to this court, that temporary total disability compensation was denied because claimant did not “provide probative and substantial evidence in support of her claim.” This is not, however, what the order said. The order stated that temporary total disability compensation was denied because claimant’s disability had become permanent, which, per State, ex rel. Ramirez, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O.3d 518, 433 N.E.2d 586, precludes temporary total disability compensation.

No evidence supports the commission’s reasoning. The district hearing officer, relying on Dr. Moser’s report, found that claimant’s condition became permanent as of her November 1983 auto accident. Dr. Moser, however, did [426]*426not examine claimant until November 3, 1987. Thus, his opinion as to the permanency of claimant’s condition prior to that time is not probative. Accordingly, there is no evidence supporting the commission’s order.

The lack of “some evidence” supporting the denial of compensation, however, is not automatically “some evidence” supporting an award. State, ex rel. Lampkins, v. Dayton Malleable, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 14, 16-17, 542 N.E.2d 1105, 1108. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals which directed the commission to redetermine claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability compensation over the period in question. If the claimant’s medical evidence is indeed insufficient to support a compensation award, the commission order should specifically so state, and explain why it found the medical evidence inadequate.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We are again asked to review the commission’s order for “some evidence” supporting its decision. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment below.

The commission’s exclusive focus on perceived deficiencies in claimant’s medical evidence is misdirected. The commission mistakenly believes, as stated in its brief to this court, that temporary total disability compensation was denied because claimant did not “provide probative and substantial evidence in support of her claim.” This is not, however, what the order said. The order stated that temporary total disability compensation was denied because claimant’s disability had become permanent, which, per State, ex rel. Ramirez, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O.3d 518, 433 N.E.2d 586, precludes temporary total disability compensation.

No evidence supports the commission’s reasoning. The district hearing officer, relying on Dr. Moser’s report, found that claimant’s condition became permanent as of her November 1983 auto accident. Dr. Moser, however, did [426]*426not examine claimant until November 3, 1987. Thus, his opinion as to the permanency of claimant’s condition prior to that time is not probative. Accordingly, there is no evidence supporting the commission’s order.

The lack of “some evidence” supporting the denial of compensation, however, is not automatically “some evidence” supporting an award. State, ex rel. Lampkins, v. Dayton Malleable, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 14, 16-17, 542 N.E.2d 1105, 1108. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals which directed the commission to redetermine claimant’s entitlement to temporary total disability compensation over the period in question. If the claimant’s medical evidence is indeed insufficient to support a compensation award, the commission order should specifically so state, and explain why it found the medical evidence inadequate.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 N.E.2d 1311, 62 Ohio St. 3d 423, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-abner-v-mayfield-ohio-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack