State ex rel. Hart v. Indus. Comm. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Hart v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hart v. Indus. Comm. (1993),
Ohio St.3d .]
Workers' compensation -- Application for permanent total
disability compensation -- Denial not an abuse of
discretion when commission's decision supported by "some
evidence."
(No. 92-1876 -- Submitted February 2, 1993 -- Decided
April 7, 1993.)
In Mandamus.
Relator-claimant, Bradley Hart, Jr., was injured in the
course of and arising from his employment with respondent
Johnson Controls, Inc. In late 1991, he sought permanent total
disability compensation.
Among other evidence before respondent Industrial
Commission of Ohio was the report of Dr. Louis P. Baldoni, who
concluded:
"* * * In my opinion, the claimant is not able to return
to his former position of employment as a truck driver due to
the physical demands of the job. In regard to the functional
level, the claimant has significant restrictions in regards to
the allowed cervical injury. He could not do any work
requiring significant physical effort involving the neck and
upper body. He would have a sedentary kind of job which allowed
some tolerance for the kind of discomfort he experiences. The
depressive disorder would preclude him from work requiring
intensive intellectual or emotional effort and intensive
interaction with fellow workers or supervisors.
"The above opinions are based on informatino [sic] in
regard to the allowed condition. They do not take into account
such factors such as age, educational achievement, vocational
experience and transferrable skills, or any non-allowed
physical or psychological conditions."
On June 29, 1992, the commission denied permanent total
disability compensation, writing:
"* * * [T]he commission find[s] from proof of record that
the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled for the
reason that the disability is not total; that is, the claimant

is able to perform sustained remunerative employment; that
therefore the Permanent Total Disability Application filed
11/22/91 be denied.
" * * *
"The order is based particularly upon the reports of
Doctor(s) [sic] Baldoni, evidence in the file and/or evidence
adduced at the hearing.
"Claimant is 39 years old, his GED is an assests [sic] in
claimant's retraining and/or returning to work. Claimant has a
work history as a truck driver, however Industrial Commission
examiner Dr. Baldoni stated claimant could engage in sedentary
work.
"Therefore with consideration given to all of the above
mentioned facts, claimant is found not to be permanent[ly and]
total[ly] disabled."
Alleging that the commission abused its discretion in
denying him permanent total disability compensation, the
claimant has filed this complaint in mandamus with this court.

Dorf & Rife, Joan H. Rife and Michael D. Dorf, for relator.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Merl H. Wayman,
Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial
Commission.
Bugbee & Conkle and Gregory B. Denny, for respondent
Johnson Controls, Inc.

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 discuss 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, at
20-21, 31 OBR at 72, 508 N.E.2d at 938. The commission is
solely responsible for evaluating evidentiary 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 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.