State ex rel. Bryant v. Industrial Commission

659 N.E.2d 1256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 458
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 7, 1996
DocketNo. 94-1093
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 659 N.E.2d 1256 (State ex rel. Bryant v. Industrial Commission) 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. Bryant v. Industrial Commission, 659 N.E.2d 1256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 458 (Ohio 1996).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Claimant seeks to compel a permanent total disability compensation award pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. Upon review, we find such relief to be inappropriate, and return the cause to the commission for further consideration and amended order pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Preliminary to any consideration of relief pursuant to Gay is a finding that Noll has not been met. State ex rel. Sebestyen v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 641 N.E.2d 197, 199. Noll noncompliance in this case stems from a deficiency which we are encountering with increasing frequency — the inconsistency between the commission’s actions and words.

The commission cites claimant’s occupational longevity as evidence that retraining is unimpeded by age. Several months earlier, however, the commission refused to refer claimant to its own rehabilitation division because it felt that claimant was too old. Claimant either is or is not too old for effective retraining — he cannot be both.

Left to decide between Noll or Gay relief, we elect the former. As we reaffirmed in State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 373, 658 N.E.2d 1055, we will not review the commission’s findings de novo. To proceed further in this instance would force us to speculate as to which age assessment more accurately reflects the commission’s views — an action we decline to take. Guidance from the commission is imperative on this important issue.

[461]*461Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and a limited writ is issued that returns the cause to the commission for further consideration and amended order.

Judgment reversed and limited unit granted.

Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.

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

Related

State ex rel. White v. Internatl. House of Pancakes
2014 Ohio 412 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
State Ex Rel. Romeo v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 06ap-821 (5-22-2007)
2007 Ohio 2472 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Indus. Comm.
1996 Ohio 191 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Industrial Commission
667 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm.
1996 Ohio 302 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Draganic v. Industrial Commission
663 N.E.2d 929 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Moss v. Indus. Comm.
1996 Ohio 306 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Moss v. Industrial Commission
662 N.E.2d 364 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Bryant v. Indus. Comm.
1996 Ohio 67 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
659 N.E.2d 1256, 74 Ohio St. 3d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bryant-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1996.