[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 389.]

THE STATE EX REL. TEMPLE, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.; AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., APPELLANT.

[Cite as State ex rel. Temple v. Indus. Comm., 1998-Ohio-70.] Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-1252—Submitted August 19, 1998—Decided October 14, 1998.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD06-761. __________________ Law Offices of James R. Nein and Matthew R. Copp, for appellee Phyllis J. Temple. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Karl J. Sutter, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. __________________ LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the order of the Industrial Commission. COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. __________________