Ohio Supreme Court, 1996

State ex rel. West v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided January 17, 1996 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

74 Ohio St. 3d 354; 658 N.E.2d 780

Cases that cite this one

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

State ex rel. King v. Trimble (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. King v. Trimble (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Universal Metal Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State Ex Rel. George v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 2011)
State Ex Rel. McCoy v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (8-10-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Willhoit v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (10-24-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Mobley v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Mobley v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Foulkrod v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State ex rel. Saia v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Ankenbauer v. Indus. Comm., 07ap-909 (9-25-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Solley v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (1-23-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (2-20-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State Ex Rel. Bryson v. Gac Mer., Unpublished Decision (7-15-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Abf Frt. v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Kynard v. Indus. Comm., Unpublished Decision (9-28-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Maynard v. Invensys App., Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Isaac v. Vernay Labs, Unpublished Decision (5-11-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
Mock v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (6-17-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Shipp v. a F C Tool Co., Unpublished Decision (5-1-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Marcum v. Volunteers of America, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Davis v. Hammer Graphics, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State Ex Rel. Fay v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Chelsea v. Industrial Comm., Unpublished Decision (6-25-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Cale v. Indus. Comm., Ohio., Unpublished Decision (6-13-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)

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.

Claimant seeks to compel permanent total disability compensation pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. The commission wants its order upheld. For the reasons to follow, we find in favor of the commission.

Gay relief cannot be considered without a preliminary finding that Noll, supra, has not been satisfied. State ex rel. Sebestyen v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 641 N.E.2d 197, 199. Asserting such noncompliance, claimant objects to the reasoning underlying the commission’s denial — that claimant’s limited academic skills do not preclude retraining for work within his physical restrictions.

Claimant’s argument hinges largely on Parsons’ assessment of functional illiteracy — a conclusion with which the commission disagreed. So long as that conclusion is supported by “some evidence,” the presence of contrary evidence is immaterial. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936. In this case, claimant was asked whether he could read, write and do basic math. Three alternative responses were listed — “Yes,” “No,” and “Not well.” Claimant chose the third response in each case.

Claimant argues that “Not well” must be interpreted as evidence that claimant possesses no transferable skills in these areas. This is incorrect. The commission is exclusively responsible for evaluating and interpreting evidence. Burley. It was the commission’s prerogative to conclude that because claimant could have denied any ability in these areas and did not, claimant possessed some minimal competency in these subjects. Claimant’s self-assessment, therefore, constitutes “some evidence” supporting the commission’s determination that claimant possessed basic abilities in these areas.

In denying permanent total disability compensation, the commission found that claimant’s physical abilities permitted retraining for work that did not require extensive academic skills. It further found that claimant’s- minimal skills were not an impediment to retraining, and explained how it reached that conclusion. The order, therefore, minimally satisfies Noll and will not be disturbed.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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