State ex rel. Buswell v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Buswell v. Industrial Commission

694 N.E.2d 900, 82 Ohio St. 3d 102

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1998

DocketNo. 95-2044

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 694 N.E.2d 900 (State ex rel. Buswell 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. Buswell v. Industrial Commission, 694 N.E.2d 900, 82 Ohio St. 3d 102 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Subsequent to the issuance of the court of appeals’ decision in this case, we decided State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929. There, we reversed the decision presently relied upon by the court below, and held that the commission was not bound by a prior interlocutory order for the award of permanent total disability compensation.

Our decision in Draganic disposes of all the issues currently presented but one — claimant’s request for relief pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. Upon review, we find relief consistent with Gay to be inappropriate.

We initially find “some evidence” in support of the commission’s conclusion that claimant is medically capable of sustained remunerative employment. Drs. Brown and Zellers found claimant physically capable of sustained remunerative [105]*105employment. Dr. Altman made a similar finding with regard to claimant’s allowed psychiatric condition. Finally, Dr. Holbrook felt that the conditions cumulatively permitted sedentary employment.

Turning to the commission’s nonmedical analysis, we find that it satisfies the requirements of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. Stressing claimant’s relatively young age and her education, the commission found claimant to have many sedentary career options both within and outside the field of health care. While the claimant has asked us to view her education in a less favorable light than did the commission, we decline to so do, recognizing the commission’s exclusive role as interpreter of evidentiary weight and credibility. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936. Accordingly, our finding of Noll compliance negates claimant’s eligibility for relief under Gay.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

Subsequent to the issuance of the court of appeals’ decision in this case, we decided State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929. There, we reversed the decision presently relied upon by the court below, and held that the commission was not bound by a prior interlocutory order for the award of permanent total disability compensation.

Our decision in Draganic disposes of all the issues currently presented but one — claimant’s request for relief pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. Upon review, we find relief consistent with Gay to be inappropriate.

We initially find “some evidence” in support of the commission’s conclusion that claimant is medically capable of sustained remunerative employment. Drs. Brown and Zellers found claimant physically capable of sustained remunerative [105]*105employment. Dr. Altman made a similar finding with regard to claimant’s allowed psychiatric condition. Finally, Dr. Holbrook felt that the conditions cumulatively permitted sedentary employment.

Turning to the commission’s nonmedical analysis, we find that it satisfies the requirements of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. Stressing claimant’s relatively young age and her education, the commission found claimant to have many sedentary career options both within and outside the field of health care. While the claimant has asked us to view her education in a less favorable light than did the commission, we decline to so do, recognizing the commission’s exclusive role as interpreter of evidentiary weight and credibility. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936. Accordingly, our finding of Noll compliance negates claimant’s eligibility for relief under Gay.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 N.E.2d 900, 82 Ohio St. 3d 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-buswell-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack