State ex rel. Davis v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Davis v. Industrial Commission

398 N.E.2d 779, 60 Ohio St. 2d 160, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 518

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1979

DocketNo. 79-450

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 398 N.E.2d 779 (State ex rel. Davis 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. Davis v. Industrial Commission, 398 N.E.2d 779, 60 Ohio St. 2d 160, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 518 (Ohio 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the commission abused its discretion in denying his motion for permanent and total disability. It is well established, however, that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the finding of the commission. See State, ex rel. Ruggles, v. Stebbins (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 228. In State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55, this court held that the opinion of a non-examining physician may constitute evidence before the commission if he expressly accepts the findings of the examining physician, but expresses his own conclusion based on those findings. Here, Dr. Davies accepted the medical findings of Dr. Berning but reached a different conclusion as to whether appellant is permanently and totally disabled. Hence, his medical opinion is evidence before the commission.

Since the evidence before the commission supports the commission’s order denying appellant’s motion for permanent and total disability, the commission did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Celebrezze, C. J., and Sweeney, J., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant alleges that the commission abused its discretion in denying his motion for permanent and total disability. It is well established, however, that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the finding of the commission. See State, ex rel. Ruggles, v. Stebbins (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 228. In State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio St. 2d 55, this court held that the opinion of a non-examining physician may constitute evidence before the commission if he expressly accepts the findings of the examining physician, but expresses his own conclusion based on those findings. Here, Dr. Davies accepted the medical findings of Dr. Berning but reached a different conclusion as to whether appellant is permanently and totally disabled. Hence, his medical opinion is evidence before the commission.

Since the evidence before the commission supports the commission’s order denying appellant’s motion for permanent and total disability, the commission did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Celebrezze, C. J., and Sweeney, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 N.E.2d 779, 60 Ohio St. 2d 160, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 402, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-davis-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack