State ex rel. West 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. West, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,
2 Appellee, et al.
3 [Cite as State ex rel. West v. Indus. Comm. (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d
4 _____.]
5 Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission's denial of
6
permanent total disability compensation not an abuse of
7
discretion when commission's decision is supported by "some
8
evidence."
9
(No. 94-1249--Submitted November 14, 1995--Decided January 17,
10 1996.)
11 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 93AP-
12 507.
13
Appellant-claimant, Thomas R. West, was injured in the course of
14 and arising from his employment with Diamond International Corporation.
15 In 1990, he applied to appellee Industrial Commission for permanent total
16 disability compensation. Among other information sought, the application
17 form posed three questions to applicant: (1) "Can you read?" (2) "Can you
18 write?" and (3) "Can you do basic math?" Given a choice of "Yes," "No,"
19 and "Not well," claimant selected the third response to all three queries.

1
Dr. Raul Florez assessed claimant and found him to be permanently
2 and totally disabled. Dr. Arnold R. Penix reported a forty-five percent
3 permanent partial impairment, concluding:
4
"Rehabilitation Potential: Considering the percentage of impairment,
5 the claimant is medically stable to participate in rehabilitation services at
6 this time at a sedentary to light duty activity level. No new diagnostic tests
7 are required. Programs which would assist the claimant in returning to
8 sustained remunerative employment would be pain and stress management,
9 general rehabilitation and vocational evaluation. Sedentary to light duty
10 employment is appropriate for the claimant at this time."
11
In a vocational evaluation, clinical psychologist George E. Parsons
12 stated:
13
"Results of the current evaluation indicate that not only is the client
14 incapable of returning to any form of employment requiring gross or fine
15 motor skills, in addition he is functionally illiterate, has neurologic deficits
16 indicating organic impairment, and additionally suffers from an Agitated
17 Depression and Dependent Personality Disorder with Schizotypal Features
18 which preclude the client from being retrained to a sedentary position.

2

1
"It is my professional opinion that the client is permanently and
2 totally impaired from engaging in any form of remunerative employment.
3 ***"
4
After an initial "remand" pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus.
5 Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, the commission issued
6 a second order denying permanent total disability benefits:
7
"The medical report(s) of Dr.(s) Flores [sic, Florez], Penix and
8 Parsons were reviewed and evaluated. The findings and order are based
9 particularly on the medical report(s) of Dr.(s) Penix, the evidence in the file
10 and the evidence adduced at hearing.
11
"Treatment of the allowed conditions has been conservative since
12 1985. Dr. Penix states the claimant is physically capable of light work when
13 considering the allowed conditions. Therefore, he would still be capable of
14 fairly physical activity. The claimant is 59, has a 6th grade education and
15 has worked as a dishwasher, laborer, maintenance man and part-time truck
16 driver. These factors are found to impact on the physical findings as
17 follows.

3

1
"The claimant has a 6th grade education. Although he indicates he
2 can not read, write or do basic math well, he can do them. Since he can still
3 do light physical work it appears he would still be able to do fairly physical
4 work requiring minimal retraining and educational skills. Since he can read,
5 write and do basic math, even though not well, it appears he has the skills to
6 do the minimal amount of retraining if such were required. Further, his
7 prior work as a truck driver indicates he retains the transferable skills of
8 driving, something which Dr. Penix does not rule out physically. Finally, at
9 age 59 he still has time in which to retrain if such were necessary. Based on
10 all these factors it is found the claimant is capable of sustained gainful work
11 and permanent and total disability is denied.
12
"The report of Dr. Parsons is not found to be some evidence in
13 support of permanent and total disability as his opinion is based in part on
14 the nonallowed conditions of depression and dependent personality disorder
15 with schizotypal features. For this reason also his report is not found
16 persuasive."
17
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
18 Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in

4

1 denying permanent total disability. The court of appeals disagreed, finding
2 "some evidence" supporting the commission's decision, and denied the writ.
3
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
4
Finkelmeier & Finkelmeier and William I. Farrell, for appellant.
5
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Charles Zamora,
6 Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
7
Per Curiam. Claimant seeks to compel permanent total disability
8 compensation pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d
9 315, 626 N.E. 2d 666. The commission wants its order upheld. For the
10 reasons to follow, we find in favor of the commission.
11
Gay relief cannot be considered without a preliminary finding that
12 Noll, supra, has not been satisfied. State ex rel. Sebestyen v. Indus. Comm.
13 (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 641 N.E.2d 197, 199. Asserting such
14 noncompliance, claimant objects to the reasoning underlying the
15 commission's denial--that claimant's limited academic skills do not
16 preclude retraining for work within his physical restrictions.
17
Claimant's argument hinges largely on Parsons' assessment of
18 functional illiteracy--a conclusion with which the commission disagreed.

5

1 So long as that conclusion is supported by "some evidence," the presence of
2 contrary evidence is immaterial. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.
3 (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936. In this case,
4 claimant was asked whether he could read, write and do basic math. Three
5 alternative responses were listed--"Yes," "No," and "Not well." Claimant
6 chose the third response in each case.
7
Claimant argues that "Not well" must be interpreted as evidence that
8 claimant possesses no transferable skills in these areas. This is incorrect.
9 The commission is exclusively responsible for evaluating and interpreting
10 evidence. Burley. It was the commission's prerogative to conclude that
11 because claimant could have denied any ability in these areas and did not,
12 claimant possessed some minimal competency in these subjects. Claimant's
13 self-assessment, therefore, constitutes "some evidence" supporting the
14 commission's determination that claimant possessed basic abilities in these
15 areas.
16
In denying permanent total disability compensation, the commission
17 found that claimant's physical abilities permitted retraining for work that
18 did not require extensive academic skills. It further found that claimant's

6

1 minimal skills were not an impediment to retraining, and explained how it
2 reached that conclusion. The order, therefore, minimally satisfies Noll and
3 will not be disturbed.
4
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
5
Judgment affirmed.
6
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER
7 and COOK, JJ., concur.
8

7