State ex rel. Crawford v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Crawford v. Industrial Commission

694 N.E.2d 903, 82 Ohio St. 3d 105

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1998

DocketNo. 95-1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 694 N.E.2d 903 (State ex rel. Crawford 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. Crawford v. Industrial Commission, 694 N.E.2d 903, 82 Ohio St. 3d 105 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Since the court of appeals’ decision in this cause, we have determined that the commission is not required to extend PTD compensation after issuing an interlocutory award for a closed period. State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929. We adhere to this opinion. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kinnebreu v. Clinic Ctr. Hotel (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 688, 691-692, 687 N.E.2d 1375, 1378; State ex rel. Toth v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 360, 363, 686 N.E.2d 514, 516; State ex rel. Binegar v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 470, 474, 687 N.E.2d 437, 440. The court of appeals’ judgment on this issue, therefore, is reversed.

[108]*108Having so decided, we decline to rule on Reliance’s alternate argument for reversal — that the record fails to show the commission’s having considered the evidence submitted at hearing in “some meaningful manner,” as required by State ex rel. Ormet v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 102, 107, 561 N.E.2d 920, 925.

The last issue presented is whether some evidence exists for the commission’s denial of PTD. Where the commission’s order is supported by “some evidence,” it does not represent an abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed in mandamus. State ex rel. Yancey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 367, 371, 673 N.E.2d 1374, 1377. Here, the commission accurately cited evidence appearing in the record to establish Crawford’s capacity for sustained remunerative employment. We are bound to accept the commission’s assessment of the evidence as to Crawford’s disability, see Yancey, 77 Ohio St.3d at 370, 673 N.E.2d at 1377, and, accordingly, cannot grant the requested writ.

Judgment reversed and writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

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

Per Curiam.

Since the court of appeals’ decision in this cause, we have determined that the commission is not required to extend PTD compensation after issuing an interlocutory award for a closed period. State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929. We adhere to this opinion. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kinnebreu v. Clinic Ctr. Hotel (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 688, 691-692, 687 N.E.2d 1375, 1378; State ex rel. Toth v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 360, 363, 686 N.E.2d 514, 516; State ex rel. Binegar v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 470, 474, 687 N.E.2d 437, 440. The court of appeals’ judgment on this issue, therefore, is reversed.

[108]*108Having so decided, we decline to rule on Reliance’s alternate argument for reversal — that the record fails to show the commission’s having considered the evidence submitted at hearing in “some meaningful manner,” as required by State ex rel. Ormet v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 102, 107, 561 N.E.2d 920, 925.

The last issue presented is whether some evidence exists for the commission’s denial of PTD. Where the commission’s order is supported by “some evidence,” it does not represent an abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed in mandamus. State ex rel. Yancey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 367, 371, 673 N.E.2d 1374, 1377. Here, the commission accurately cited evidence appearing in the record to establish Crawford’s capacity for sustained remunerative employment. We are bound to accept the commission’s assessment of the evidence as to Crawford’s disability, see Yancey, 77 Ohio St.3d at 370, 673 N.E.2d at 1377, and, accordingly, cannot grant the requested writ.

Judgment reversed and writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 N.E.2d 903, 82 Ohio St. 3d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-crawford-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack