State ex rel. Manley v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Manley v. Industrial Commission

418 N.E.2d 1385, 66 Ohio St. 2d 40, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 25, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 467

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1165

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 418 N.E.2d 1385 (State ex rel. Manley 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. Manley v. Industrial Commission, 418 N.E.2d 1385, 66 Ohio St. 2d 40, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 25, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 467 (Ohio 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The issue presented herein is whether the opinion rendered by Dr. Davies, a non-examining physician, was properly utilized by the Industrial Commission in its denial of appellant’s motion for a permanent and total disability award.

In State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio [42]*42St. 2d 55, this court discussed the purpose of the opinion of a non-examining physician in a case before the Industrial Commission. This court stated, at page 59: “[T]he non-examining physician is required to expressly accept all the findings of the examining physicians, but not the opinion drawn therefrom. If a non-examining physician fails to accept the findings of the doctors***, the medical opinion that is rendered does not constitute evidence to support a subsequent order of the commission.”

It follows that if the non-examining physician does accept the findings of the examining doctors, the resulting report of the non-examining physician will constitute evidence before the commission. State, ex rel. Rachow, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 17; State, ex rel. Kramer, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 59 Ohio St. 2d 39. In the instant case, the non-examining physician did accept the findings of the examining physicians and his report made specific reference to those findings. Since the guidelines of State, ex rel. Wallace, supra, were followed, the report of Dr. Davies was evidence before the commission.

Dr. Davies, as well as the commission, determined that appellant was not permanently and totally disabled. It is well established that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128. There was ample evidence, based on the findings of the examining physicians as well as Dr. Davies’ report, that appellant was not permanently' and totally disabled. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus will not be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

The issue presented herein is whether the opinion rendered by Dr. Davies, a non-examining physician, was properly utilized by the Industrial Commission in its denial of appellant’s motion for a permanent and total disability award.

In State, ex rel. Wallace, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 57 Ohio [42]*42St. 2d 55, this court discussed the purpose of the opinion of a non-examining physician in a case before the Industrial Commission. This court stated, at page 59: “[T]he non-examining physician is required to expressly accept all the findings of the examining physicians, but not the opinion drawn therefrom. If a non-examining physician fails to accept the findings of the doctors***, the medical opinion that is rendered does not constitute evidence to support a subsequent order of the commission.”

It follows that if the non-examining physician does accept the findings of the examining doctors, the resulting report of the non-examining physician will constitute evidence before the commission. State, ex rel. Rachow, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 17; State, ex rel. Kramer, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 59 Ohio St. 2d 39. In the instant case, the non-examining physician did accept the findings of the examining physicians and his report made specific reference to those findings. Since the guidelines of State, ex rel. Wallace, supra, were followed, the report of Dr. Davies was evidence before the commission.

Dr. Davies, as well as the commission, determined that appellant was not permanently and totally disabled. It is well established that mandamus will not lie where there is some evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission. See, e.g., State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 128. There was ample evidence, based on the findings of the examining physicians as well as Dr. Davies’ report, that appellant was not permanently' and totally disabled. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus will not be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 N.E.2d 1385, 66 Ohio St. 2d 40, 20 Ohio Op. 3d 25, 1981 Ohio LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-manley-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack