State ex rel. Hart v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hart v. Industrial Commission

609 N.E.2d 166, 66 Ohio St. 3d 95

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 7, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1876

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 609 N.E.2d 166 (State ex rel. Hart 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. Hart v. Industrial Commission, 609 N.E.2d 166, 66 Ohio St. 3d 95 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are once again asked to review the commission’s decision for “some evidence,” as required by State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, syllabus. The present commission decision was based on a combination of medical and nonmedical factors — Dr. Baldoni’s conclusion that claimant could do sedentary work, as well as claimant’s youth and education. These factors provide “some evidence” supporting the denial of permanent total disability compensation.

Claimant’s attack on Dr. Baldoni’s report lacks merit. Claimant’s contention that the report is deficient because it did not diseuss nonmedical factors ignores the language in State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 171, 31 OBR 369, 373, 509 N.E.2d 946, 950, which specifically instructed physicians to limit their opinions to medical impairment. Similarly, State ex rel. Lawrence v. American Lubricants Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 533 N.E.2d 344, 346, stated:

“The court of appeals held that because Dr. Hutchison’s report commented solely on impairment it was of no evidentiary value. * * * We disagree * * *. In Stephenson, we indicated that ‘impairment,’ not ‘disability,’ is the proper subject of medical reports. Therefore, it is inconsistent to .discard as nonprobative reports that confine themselves to a discussion of impairment.”

Claimant’s citation to contrary evidence of record ignores our consistent refusal to reweigh evidence. Burley, supra, 31 Ohio St.3d at 20-21, 31 OBR at 72, 508 N.E.2d at 938. The commission is solely responsible for evaluating [97]*97evidentiary weight and credibility. Id.; State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Krise (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 247, 254, 71 O.O.2d 226, 230, 327 N.E.2d 756, 761. Having found the commission’s decision to be supported by “some evidence,” we reject claimant’s challenge going to the evidence before us.

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied..

Writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

We are once again asked to review the commission’s decision for “some evidence,” as required by State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, syllabus. The present commission decision was based on a combination of medical and nonmedical factors — Dr. Baldoni’s conclusion that claimant could do sedentary work, as well as claimant’s youth and education. These factors provide “some evidence” supporting the denial of permanent total disability compensation.

Claimant’s attack on Dr. Baldoni’s report lacks merit. Claimant’s contention that the report is deficient because it did not diseuss nonmedical factors ignores the language in State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 171, 31 OBR 369, 373, 509 N.E.2d 946, 950, which specifically instructed physicians to limit their opinions to medical impairment. Similarly, State ex rel. Lawrence v. American Lubricants Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 321, 322, 533 N.E.2d 344, 346, stated:

“The court of appeals held that because Dr. Hutchison’s report commented solely on impairment it was of no evidentiary value. * * * We disagree * * *. In Stephenson, we indicated that ‘impairment,’ not ‘disability,’ is the proper subject of medical reports. Therefore, it is inconsistent to .discard as nonprobative reports that confine themselves to a discussion of impairment.”

Claimant’s citation to contrary evidence of record ignores our consistent refusal to reweigh evidence. Burley, supra, 31 Ohio St.3d at 20-21, 31 OBR at 72, 508 N.E.2d at 938. The commission is solely responsible for evaluating [97]*97evidentiary weight and credibility. Id.; State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Krise (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 247, 254, 71 O.O.2d 226, 230, 327 N.E.2d 756, 761. Having found the commission’s decision to be supported by “some evidence,” we reject claimant’s challenge going to the evidence before us.

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied..

Writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 N.E.2d 166, 66 Ohio St. 3d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hart-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack