State ex rel. Patrick 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. Patrick, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.,
2 Appellees.
3 [Cite as State ex rel. Patrick v. Indus. Comm. (1996), _____ Ohio St. 3d
4 _____.]
5 Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission abuses its discretion in
6
denying permanent total disability compensation when it does not
7
explain the reasoning for its decision.
8
(No. 94-1048--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 10,
9 1996.)
10 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 93AP-
11 963.
12
13
Appellant-claimant, Harold J. Patrick, was injured in the course of
14 and arising from his employment with appellee Sorg Paper Company. His
15 workers' compensation claim was allowed for injuries to both knees. In
16 1990, he moved appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for permanent total
17 disability compensation based on the certification of Dr. William D.
18 Langworthy.

1
Among the other evidence before the commission were the reports of
2 Drs. Wayne C. Amendt and Arnold R. Penix. Both physicians felt that
3 claimant could not return to his former job, but could do sedentary work.
4 Permanent partial impairment was assessed in the low-to-mid forty-
5 percentage range.
6
The commission denied permanent total disability compensation,
7 writing:
8
"The medical evidence found persuasive are the reports of I.C.
9 specialists Drs. Amendt and Penix. These reports indicate the claimant's
10 allowed condition represent a low to moderate impairment which would not
11 preclude sedentary to light employment. While it is recognized the
12 claimant's education (8th grade) and limited work experience serve as
13 significant barriers to his ability to obtain gainful employment, it is
14 determined that the claimant does have the vocational aptitude necessary to
15 engage in and/or be trained for light employment."
16
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
17 Franklin County, claiming that the commission abused its discretion in
18 denying permanent total disability compensation. The court of appeals

2

1 found that the order did not comply with this court's mandates in State ex
2 rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E. 2d 245, and
3 returned the cause to the commission for further consideration and amended
4 order.
5
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
6
7
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J.
8 Jaffy; Lord & Shew and J. C. Shew, for appellant.
9
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Melanie Cornelius,
10 Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
11
Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry and Gary T. Brinsfield, for appellee Sorg
12 Paper Company.
13
14
Per Curiam. Claimant seeks relief consistent with State ex rel. Gay v.
15 Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St. 3d 315, 626 N.E. 2d 666. The appellate court,
16 however, held that relief consistent with Noll was more appropriate.
17
We agree that the commission's order does not satisfy Noll. The
18 commission acknowledged that the claimant's education and work history

3

1 were "significant barriers to his ability to obtain gainful employment," but
2 then concluded, without further explanation, that claimant had the
3 "vocational aptitude necessary to engage in and/or be trained for light
4 employment." These two findings are inconsistent without further
5 explanation.
6
Noll noncompliance, however, does not compel relief consistent with
7 Gay. The claimant's nonmedical profile, in this case, is not one that
8 compels but one disability conclusion. Absent such a profile, Gay relief
9 cannot issue.
10
Claimant lastly raises a due process argument, claiming that
11 preparation of the permanent total disability compensation order by a
12 subordinate hearing officer violates the Constitution. State ex rel. Ormet
13 Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 54 Ohio St. 3d 102, 561 N.E. 2d 920,
14 indicates otherwise. Claimant ignores that the commission is responsible
15 for evaluating and ratifying that order, and is free to accept, reject, or
16 modify it. Thus, by the time the order was ratified, it did indeed reflect the
17 conclusions of the commission.
18
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

4

1
Judgment affirmed.
2
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,
3 concur.
4
WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., dissent.
5 Cook, J., dissenting. I would reverse the court of appeals, as I
6 disagree with the proposition that the order of the commission fails to
7 comply with Noll.
8
As I do not concur with the conclusion that the commission's findings
9 are inconsistent without further explanation, I would reverse the court of
10 appeals and deny the writ.
11
WRIGHT, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
12

5