State ex rel. Peeples v. Farley Paving Co.
Opinions
This court has held on numerous occasions 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; State, ex rel. Ruggles, v. Stebbins (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 228. There was evidence before the commission to support the finding that the appellant had no psychiatric condition resulting from his earlier industrial injury. Both the report of Dr. Altman, the examining psychiatrist, and the report of Dr. Cordell, the non-examining psychologist, indicate that appellant suffered no psychiatric disability. Therefore, on that issue, the Court of Appeals was correct.
Appellant also contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed since the commission has failed to comply with R. C. 4121.38.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
420 N.E.2d 111 (State ex rel. Peeples v. Farley Paving Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.