State ex rel. Justice v. Hurley - 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.] JUSTICE, APPELLANT, v. HURLEY; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Justice v. Hurley (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 209.]
Workers' compensation -- Mandamus directing Industrial Commission to vacate
its order denying relator permanent total disability compensation denied,
when.
(No. 96-1828 -- Submitted January 7, 1997 -- Decided July 16, 1997.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95ADP07-918.
__________________

Eunice Justice, pro se.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
__________________

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by the court of appeals in its
opinion rendered on June 20, 1996, which we adopt and attach as an appendix to
this entry.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.
APPENDIX

JOHN C. YOUNG, Judge.

Relator, Eunice Justice, has filed this original action requesting that this
court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of
Ohio ("commission") to vacate its order denying relator permanent total disability

compensation, and to award relator such compensation in accordance with the
evidence of record.

This matter was referred to a court-appointed magistrate pursuant to Civ.R.
53(C) and Section 13, Loc.R. 11 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The
magistrate has issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and has recommended that this court deny relator's request for a writ of
mandamus. Relator has filed objections to the magistrate's decision.

Upon an examination of the decision of the magistrate, an independent
review of the file, and consideration of relator's objections, this court finds that
the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and has applied the
salient law to them. Accordingly, this court agrees with the magistrate's decision,
including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, and relator's
objections are overruled.

The record in the present case contains both medical and psychological
reports which support the commission's finding that relator is not entitled to
permanent and total disability compensation. Dr. Vaughan indicated that
claimant's allowed orthopedic conditions would not prevent her from returning to
her former position of employment within certain guidelines. Dr. Bartley found
that claimant exaggerated her responses to the testing and that his physical
findings indicated that claimant could currently work at her previous job as a store
manager. Dr. Altman found that claimant would not be fit for any type of
employment, but this finding was not due to the allowed psychiatric conditions in
the claim.

Given the commission's finding that relator was medically able to return to
her former position of employment, it was unnecessary for the commission to
evaluate the nonmedical factors because any inability to work is not causally

2

related to the allowed conditions. State ex rel. Speelman v. Indus. Comm. (1992),
73 Ohio App.3d 757, 762, 598 N.E.2d 192, 195. The commission discussed these
factors anyway, and the order indicates that the claimant is at the advanced age of
seventy, but that her extensive educational background would be a valuable asset
in a successful retraining program and that her varied work history shows that she
has significant transferable sedentary work skills. The commission concluded by
finding that relator was not permanently removed from all forms of sustained
remunerative employment, even of a sedentary nature, and that she was not
entitled to permanent total disability.

In her objections, relator raises many of the same issues which she raised in
her original petition and which were discussed by the magistrate. Relator urges
this court to look at the combined-effects review prepared by Dr. Holbrook as
evidence that the commission should have found that she was permanently and
totally disabled. Dr. Holbrook concluded that relator had a whole person
impairment of sixty percent; however, relator's argument ignores the fact that,
although the report of Dr. Holbrook was reviewed and evaluated by the
commission, the commission did not base its order on that report nor was the
commission required to do so. Our inquiry on review is whether or not the record
contains some evidence to support the commission's finding and not whether or
not all of the evidence in the record supports the commission's findings.

Based on the foregoing, this court adopts the decision of the magistrate as
its own, and the objections raised by relator are overruled. This court finds that
relator has not demonstrated a clear legal right to permanent total disability
compensation or a clear legal right to a further explanation by the commission, as
the evidence in this case and the reasoning given for the decision meet all the

3

requirements of applicable law. Therefore, relator's request for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
Objections overruled and
writ of mandamus denied.

PETREE, P.J., and CLOSE, J., concur.

4