State ex rel. Madison 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

The State ex rel. Madison, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission
of Ohio, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Madison v. Indus. Comm. (1994),
Ohio St.3d .]
Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission's order granting
or denying benefits to a claimant must specifically state
what portion of the evidence has been relied upon, and
briefly explain the reasoning for its decision.
(No. 93-1497 -- Submitted March 22, 1994 -- Decided May
18, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
92AP-1040.
Appellant-claimant, Jack J. Madison, was a school teacher
for many years. Low pay and student discipline problems
prompted his departure from the profession in 1972. Claimant
then began working in Davro Corporation's plating plant.
Claimant contracted "asthmatic bronchitis" in 1986 in the
course of and arising from his employment, and his workers'
compensation claim was allowed for that condition. In 1990,
claimant applied to appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio,
for permanent total disability compensation.
The medical evidence submitted to the commission uniformly
agreed that claimant could not return to his former position of
employment as a plater. Drs. Lawrence Martin and Anthony
DiMarco felt that claimant could do other work provided he was
in a fume-free environment. Attending physician Joseph A.
Sopko felt that claimant was permanently and totally "disabled."
Claimant also submitted a vocational report from William
L. Fink, who wrote:
"Mr. Madison complains of shortness of breath with minimal
exertion. He certainly cannot return to work in machinery
repair as this work is very heavy work and is not performed in
a clean environment. While school teaching of academic
subjects is considered light work, one must also consider the
fact that Mr. Madison's age, plus the fact that it is an
emotionally demanding job, especially with the discipline
problems that occur in our public schools. Mr. Madison does
not have an advanced degree or any specialized credentials that
would qualify him to work in a prestigious prepschool, junior
college or college. Even consideration of Mr. Madison's
returning to the field of education is a moot point as he
complains that speaking for long periods of time causes
shortness of breath.
"* * *
"If Mr. Madison were a much younger man he could enter
graduate school in mathematics or science and he could
eventually work in a climate controlled and pollution free
laboratory. However, he is of advanced age, and in accordance
with his treating physician's letter (attached) Mr. Madison has
a chronic complaint that simply is not going to go away, nor is
Mr. Madison going to get any younger.
"Thus, when age is considered, plus the greater part of
his past relevant work history and his physical complaints,
there are no areas of sustained remunerative employment I, as a
vocational rehabilitation consultant, can recommend. It is my
opinion this man is permanently and totally removed from
sustained remunerative activity from a vocational point of

view."
The commission denied permanent total disability
compensation, stating:
"The reports of Drs. Sopko, DiMarco and Martin and
vocational report of Mr. Fink were reviewed and evaluated.
This order is based particularly upon the reports of Drs.
DiMarco and Martin, a consideration of the claimant's age,
education, work history * * *.
"Claimant is age sixty-nine with a college degree in
teaching and a work history of heavy machinery repair (twenty
years in the Navy), school teacher and as a zinc, chrome and
nickel plater (sixteen years). It is noted that both Dr.
DiMarco and Dr. Martin found a permanent partial impairment of
twenty percent and that on a medical basis, claimant would be
capable of employment in which he was not exposed to dust and
fumes. In light of these factors, it is found that claimant is
not permanently and totally disabled due to the condition
allowed in this claim."
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of
Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission
abused its discretion in denying permanent total disability
compensation. The court of appeals found a violation of State
ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 203, 567
N.E.2d 245, because the commission's order failed to adequately
explain its reasoning. The court vacated the order and
returned the cause to the commission for further consideration
and an amended order.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of
right.

Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy
and Marc J. Jaffy; and Frank Gallucci, for appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Michael P. O'Grady and
Richard A. Hernandez, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Per Curiam. Claimant in effect seeks a writ of mandamus
to compel the commission to award permanent total disability
compensation consistent with our decision in State ex rel. Gay
v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St. 3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. We find
such relief to be inappropriate in this case and affirm the
judgment of the court below.
The present order violates Noll, supra, because it does
not explain how the vocationally contradictory factors it cites
enable claimant to be capable of sustained remunerative
employment. While claimant's education and work history are
vocationally favorable, his age is not.
The existence of conflicting factors renders Gay's
application here inappropriate. Because claimant has
nonmedical factors that are both vocationally favorable and
unfavorable, a decision to either grant or deny benefits --
with proper explanation - - could be evidentially defensible.
A return of the cause for further consideration and an amended
order is not, under these circumstances, the futile exercise
that Gay seeks to prevent.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse on authority
of State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626
N.E.2d 666.