State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission

388 N.E.2d 1382, 58 Ohio St. 2d 127, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 126, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 401

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 9, 1979·No. No. 78-375·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The instant cause having originated in the Court of Appeals, this court is obligated, pursuant to Section 2, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to review it. Having done so, we find no merit in relator’s appeal. The [129] issue presented here is whether the commission’s finding of total disability is unsupported by any evidence in the record, resulting in an abuse of discretion subject to correction by an action in mandamus. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 282-283; State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 15, 16. However, this court has quite clearly held that the commission does not abuse its discretion where the record contains sufficient evidence to support its factual iindings. State, ex rel. Rockwell Internat., v. Indus. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 96, 97-98; State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., supra, at page 283. See, also, State ex rel. Moon, v. Daugherty (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 17; State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128; State, ex rel. Stuber, v. Indus Comm. (1933), 127 Ohio St. 325. Therefore, only where there is no evidence of probative value in the record will a writ of mandamus be granted. A review of the record reveals that the finding of the commission is •supported by evidence of probative value.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, •affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locheb, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., not participating because he was a Judge of the Court of Appeals which heard the case.

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

Per Curiam.

The instant cause having originated in the Court of Appeals, this court is obligated, pursuant to Section 2, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to review it. Having done so, we find no merit in relator’s appeal. The [129] issue presented here is whether the commission’s finding of total disability is unsupported by any evidence in the record, resulting in an abuse of discretion subject to correction by an action in mandamus. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 282-283; State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 15, 16. However, this court has quite clearly held that the commission does not abuse its discretion where the record contains sufficient evidence to support its factual iindings. State, ex rel. Rockwell Internat., v. Indus. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 96, 97-98; State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., supra, at page 283. See, also, State ex rel. Moon, v. Daugherty (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 17; State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128; State, ex rel. Stuber, v. Indus Comm. (1933), 127 Ohio St. 325. Therefore, only where there is no evidence of probative value in the record will a writ of mandamus be granted. A review of the record reveals that the finding of the commission is •supported by evidence of probative value.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, •affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locheb, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., not participating because he was a Judge of the Court of Appeals which heard the case.

State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission, 388 N.E.2d 1382, 58 Ohio St. 2d 127, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 126, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 401 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

388 N.E.2d 1382 (State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related