State ex rel. Humphrey v. Indus. Comm.

1998 Ohio 66, 83 Ohio St. 3d 360

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: October 14, 1998
• Docket: 1997-1531
• Status: Published

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 360.]

THE STATE EX REL. HUMPHREY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Humphrey v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-66.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-1531—Submitted August 19, 1998—Decided October 14, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD09-1210. __________________ Law Offices of Larry Hotchkiss and Scott A. Bravi, for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent. __________________ ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission to consider the report of bureau vocational specialist Rod Metcalf. The commission’s order lists reports reviewed and evaluated, but omits mention of the Metcalf report. I disagree with the court of appeals’ finding that the commission satisfied the requirement that it indicate consideration of the Metcalf report because another vocational report makes several references to it. It is the commission’s duty to evaluate all the evidence, and it may not delegate that responsibility. See State ex rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Ohio St.3d 572, 577, 679 N.E.2d 295, 299; State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057. MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. _________________