State ex rel. Dodson v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Dodson v. Industrial Commission

406 N.E.2d 513, 62 Ohio St. 2d 408, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 439, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 784

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 25, 1980

DocketNo. 80-277

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 513 (State ex rel. Dodson 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. Dodson v. Industrial Commission, 406 N.E.2d 513, 62 Ohio St. 2d 408, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 439, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 784 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court has enunciated the “some evidence” rule recently in State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 77, 79, as follows: [410]*410“***[W]here the record contains some evidence to support the commission’s factual findings, these findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 283; State, ex rel. Capitol City Excavating Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 184, 188-189.”

The commission stated in its decision that it relied, inter alia, upon “evidence in the file.” Under R. C. 4123.10, the commission “shall not be bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence***.” In addition, the commission file is replete with material of a quasi-evidentiary nature which would support the commission’s determination and satisfy the “some evidence” rule. For instance, appellant filed suit for injuries sustained in an automobile accident in 1969, including sprain and contusion of the musculature of the lumbo-sacral spinal region and aggravation of pre-existing arthritis in the spinal region and left knee. In 1967, appellant sued for injuries allegedly received from a fall in a laundromat including injuries to her head, back, left arm, right leg, and limitation of motion and pain regarding her back, arms, and legs. In addition, appellant was repeatedly treated at the Cleveland Clinic for recurrent pain in her knees prior to her alleged industrial accident.

In view of the extensive medical history of appellant, there was definitely some evidence in appellant’s file upon which the commission could base its finding that she is permanently and totally disabled but not as a result of the allowed injuries.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

This court has enunciated the “some evidence” rule recently in State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 77, 79, as follows: [410]*410“***[W]here the record contains some evidence to support the commission’s factual findings, these findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 283; State, ex rel. Capitol City Excavating Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 184, 188-189.”

The commission stated in its decision that it relied, inter alia, upon “evidence in the file.” Under R. C. 4123.10, the commission “shall not be bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence***.” In addition, the commission file is replete with material of a quasi-evidentiary nature which would support the commission’s determination and satisfy the “some evidence” rule. For instance, appellant filed suit for injuries sustained in an automobile accident in 1969, including sprain and contusion of the musculature of the lumbo-sacral spinal region and aggravation of pre-existing arthritis in the spinal region and left knee. In 1967, appellant sued for injuries allegedly received from a fall in a laundromat including injuries to her head, back, left arm, right leg, and limitation of motion and pain regarding her back, arms, and legs. In addition, appellant was repeatedly treated at the Cleveland Clinic for recurrent pain in her knees prior to her alleged industrial accident.

In view of the extensive medical history of appellant, there was definitely some evidence in appellant’s file upon which the commission could base its finding that she is permanently and totally disabled but not as a result of the allowed injuries.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 513, 62 Ohio St. 2d 408, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 439, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dodson-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack