Ohio Supreme Court, 1981

State ex rel. G F Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 17, 1981 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

66 Ohio St. 2d 446; 423 N.E.2d 99; 20 Ohio Op. 3d 379; 1981 Ohio LEXIS 530

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Stover (Ohio 1987)
State ex rel. Milburn v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Koonce v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Koonce v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Hudson v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1984)
State ex rel. Huffman v. Xerox Corp. (Ohio 1988)
State ex rel. Nye v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. v. Lancaster (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Jeffrey v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1986)
State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co. (Ohio 1986)
State Ex Rel. Hoover Universal, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1985)
State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1985)
Krupa v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1984)
State ex rel. Meeks v. Ohio Brass Co. (Ohio 1984)
State ex rel. Williams v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1984)
State ex rel. Petros v. Connor (Ohio 1984)
State Ex Rel. Brown v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1983)
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (Ohio 1983)
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)
State ex rel. Norman v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1982)
State ex rel. GF Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1982)
State ex rel. Ohio Precision Castings v. Bohman (Ohio 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Relator contends that the commission abused its discretion in sustaining claimant’s motion for permanent total disability benefits. We find this contention to be without merit.

Essentially, relator asks this court to reweigh the medical evidence. It is well established that “* * *the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 15, 16. See, also, State, ex rel. Reed, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 200; State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47.

This court has repeatedly held that where the record contains some evidence which supports the commission’s factual findings, such findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 77; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 160; State, ex rel. Republic Steel, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 193; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 408. Examination of the record indicates that the medical opinions of Dr. Kravec and Dr. Dombczewsky constitute some evidence which support the commission’s factual determinations.

Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.

Writ denied.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and C. Brown, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.