Ohio Supreme Court, 1982

State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 28, 1982 · Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney

1 Ohio St. 3d 101; 438 N.E.2d 420; 1 Ohio B. 135; 1982 Ohio LEXIS 712

Cases that cite this one

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

State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (Ohio 1994)
State Ex Rel. Dreyer v. Anderson, Unpublished Decision (2-3-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus.Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Morris v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1984)
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)
State Ex Rel. George v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2011)
State ex rel. Gemind v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Gemind v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Malinowski v. Hordis Bros. (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Malinowski v. Hordis Bros., Inc. (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Adams v. Teledyne Ohiocast (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Adams v. Teledyne Ohiocast (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Adams v. Teledyne Ohiocast (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Wean United, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1993)
State ex rel. Brown v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1993)
State ex rel. Wean United, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1993)
White v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
State ex rel. Kaska v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Blake v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1992)

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.

“Where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion an abuse of discretion is present and mandamus becomes appropriate. State, ex rel. Hutton, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 9 [58 O.O.2d 66].” State, ex rel. Kramer, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 59 Ohio St. 2d 39, 42 [13 O.O.3d 30, 31].

Relator argues that upon deposition, Dr. McCloud repudiated the conclusion in his report and thus the report cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission. We agree.

The purpose of permanent total disability benefits is to compensate a claimant for impairment of earning capacity. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 282 [71 O.O.2d 255, 258]. The Medical Examination Manual issued by the commission’s Medical Section pursuant to R.C. 4121.38(B)(2),1 states, at page vi, that permanent total disability “* * * is established when the injury has caused the injured worker to be unfit for sustained remunerative employment.”

In his deposition, Dr. McCloud concluded that relator was not fit for sustained remunerative employment and was permanently and totally disabled, in direct conflict with his original report. We reject the commission’s contention that Dr. McCloud’s deposition testimony does not detract from the probative value of the original report. The result urged by the commission would defeat the purposes of deposing an expert witness since the commission could ignore that testimony if it tends to discredit the expert’s original report. It would also serve to emasculate the provisions of R.C. 4121.38(B)(2), the purpose of which is to increase consistency in medical evaluations, because it would permit the commission to override its own definitions and standards.

We hold that where a medical expert has, by deposition testimony, repudiated a conclusion previously made in a medical report, that report cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission. In the case at *103bar, there was no evidence but the repudiated report of Dr. McCloud to support the order of the commission and all the evidence presented supported relator’s entitlement to benéfits for permanent and total disability.

Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, C. Brown and Krupansky, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., concurs in the judgment.

R.C. 4121.38 provides in part:

“(B) The medical section shall:

<<‡ * *

“(2) Issue a manual of commission policy as to impairment evaluation so as to increase consistency of medical reports. This manual shall be available to the public at cost but shall be provided to all physicians who treat claimants or to whom claimants are referred for evaluation;

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