Ohio Supreme Court, 1994

State ex rel. Fultz v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 18, 1994 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

69 Ohio St. 3d 327; 631 N.E.2d 1057

Cases that cite this one

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

State ex rel. Barnes v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2007)
State ex rel. Digiacinto v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2020)
Slater v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (8-28-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State ex rel. Lovell v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Lovell v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1996)
State v. Jtm Provisions Co., Unpublished Decision (5-27-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Balvin v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Ranomer v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Ranomer v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Balvin v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Scott v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State ex rel. Washington v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State ex rel. Crawford v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State ex rel. Brahler v. Kent State Univ. (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State Ex Rel. Grimm v. Indus. Comm., 07ap-761 (4-15-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. Scouler v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2008)
State ex rel. Digiacinto v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State ex rel. McCormick v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Rumpke Consol. Cos., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Gardner v. Indus. Commission, 08ap-291 (12-4-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. Showa Aluminum Corp. of America v. Industrial Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State Ex Rel. Munden v. Ohio Veterans Home, 06ap-1127 (7-24-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Consol. Coal Co. v. Alexander, Unpublished Decision (8-1-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Hall v. Midwest Drywall, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)

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.

This controversy centers on a Noll sufficiency review and, if the order is found lacking, the relief deemed appropriate. Upon review, we find a Noll consideration to be premature, but for the reasons set forth below, we nonetheless affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Neither the commission’s rehabilitation report nor Riccio’s vocational report is listed in the commission’s order as being among the evidence the commission considered. While the commission correctly contends in essence that it need only enumerate the evidence relied on, the fact that the commission in listing the evidence considered omitted those two reports from that list, leads to only one conclusion — the commission either inadvertently or intentionally ignored that evidence. Because these reports could be the key to the success or failure of claimant’s application, the cause must be returned to the commission for further consideration.

Accordingly, the appellate judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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