State ex. rel. Neumeyer 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

1 The State ex rel. Neumeyer, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Industrial
2 Commission of Ohio, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
3 [Cite as State ex. rel. Neumeyer v. Indus. Comm. (1996), _____ Ohio
4 St.3d_____.]
5 Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission does not abuse its
6
discretion in basing a permanent partial disability award solely
7
on medical and clinical findings that are reasonably
8
demonstrable.
9
(No. 94-2755 -- Submitted June 5, 1996 -- Decided July 3, 1996.)
10
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin
11 County, No. 93AP-831.
12
In 1979, appellee and cross-appellant, claimant Robert K. Neumeyer,
13 was injured in the course of and arising from his employment with R.H.
14 Penick. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for "fracture left
15 femur comminuted subtrochanteric spasm," and claimant eventually filed an
16 "Application for the Determination of the Percentage of Permanent Partial
17 Disability" with the appellant and cross-appellee, Industrial Commission of
18 Ohio.

1
Among the evidence before the commission were the reports of
2 commission specialist Dr. Thomas H. Baughman and consulting physician
3 Dr. Timothy R. Gatens. Dr. Baughman assessed a ten percent permanent
4 partial impairment. Dr. Gatens did not comment on the percent of
5 impairment, but did note that claimant "has had remarkable improvement in
6 his pain and increase in his activity level."
7
After protracted administrative and judicial proceedings, a
8 commission district hearing officer found a ten percent permanent partial
9 disability. That order was administratively affirmed. The commission staff
10 hearing officer wrote:
11
"It is the finding of the Staff Hearing Officer that the Application for
12 Reconsideration be denied and the order of the District Hearing Officer,
13 dated 12-12-90, be affirmed for the reason that is supported by proof of
14 record and is not contrary to law.
15
"This order is based upon the report of Dr. Baughman, as well as a
16 consideration of the claimant's non-medical disability factors of age 48,
17 high school diploma and prior work experience of laborer in a meat market,

2

1 apprenticeship program in plumbing and twelve years as a plumber and
2 work as an oil field worker.
3
"The statement of R.H. Penick, claimant's employer, and testimony of
4 the claimant concerning disability above Dr. Baughman's ten percent (10%)
5 impairment rating were also considered. It is found the increased disability
6 alleged by the claimant is not evidenced by medical or clinical findings
7 reasonably demonstrable as required by O.R.C. 4123.57. Dr. Gatens
8 reported on 12-17-90 that neurologically, the left leg is intact and extensive
9 medical work-up showed no problems with the fracture site or any tumor or
10 any other problems going on that might be causing his left leg pain."
11
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
12 Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in
13 failing to find a higher percentage of permanent partial disability. The court
14 of appeals agreed and returned the cause to the commission for further
15 consideration and amended order.
16
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal and cross-appeal
17 as of right.

3

1
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J.
2 Jaffy, for appellee and cross-appellant.
3
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William McDonald,
4 Assistant Attorney General, for appellant and cross-appellee.
5
Per Curiam. On authority of our decision in State ex rel. Holman v.
6 Longfellow Restaurant. (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____, ____ N.E.2d
7 ____, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
8
9

Judgment reversed.
10
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
11
DOUGLAS, J., dissents.
12
RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent and would affirm the
13 judgment of the court of appeals.
14

4