State ex rel. AVI Food Sys. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 8645
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Claimant Paul Zapol sustained a 2010 work injury; allowed conditions included lumbar sprain, L4-5 disc protrusion, and dysthymic disorder. He had laminectomy (2011) and fusion (2012).
- Claimant applied for permanent total disability (PTD) on January 16, 2015; medical opinions in the record included Dr. DeMicco (Sept. 19, 2014), Dr. Kaffen (June 8, 2015), and Dr. Ahn (May 2, 2015).
- Dr. DeMicco concluded claimant was incapable of any sustained remunerative employment and supported an earlier PTD start date (Sept. 19, 2014). Dr. Kaffen also concluded claimant was incapable of work and reached MMI with 23% WPI, supporting PTD as of June 8, 2015. Dr. Ahn concluded claimant could do sedentary-to-light work and attributed symptoms to non-allowed conditions.
- The commission (via a second staff hearing officer) granted PTD relying exclusively on Dr. Kaffen’s June 8, 2015 report. A subsequent SHO adjusted the PTD start date earlier to March 18, 2015 based on Dr. DeMicco’s report and claimant’s prior TTD termination date.
- Relator AVI sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the PTD award and argued Dr. Kaffen’s report was internally inconsistent and insufficient; claimant objected to limiting the start date to Dr. Kaffen’s report date. The magistrate and this court upheld the PTD award but found the commission erred in using DeMicco’s report (which the commission did not rely on to award PTD) to set an earlier start date.
Issues
| Issue | Relator's Argument | Claimant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Kaffen’s report is evidence sufficient to support PTD. | Dr. Kaffen’s report is internally inconsistent because the L4-5 protrusion was allegedly resolved by fusion, so it cannot be the source of current disability. | Dr. Kaffen tied ongoing symptoms to the allowed condition despite prior surgery and found claimant incapable of work. | Court: Dr. Kaffen’s report is some evidence; credibility/weight are for the commission, so PTD grant was not an abuse. |
| Whether the commission may set the PTD start date based on Dr. DeMicco’s report when the commission relied only on Dr. Kaffen to grant PTD. | The commission properly used earliest medical evidence (DeMicco) to set an earlier start date. | Start date must be tied to the medical evidence the commission actually relied on in awarding PTD. | Court: Under Dingus, evidence supporting an earlier start date is immaterial if the commission did not rely on it when awarding PTD; the start date must be June 8, 2015 (Kaffen). |
| Whether claimant needed to supply psychological evidence to support PTD (claim was also allowed for dysthymia). | The commission should have required psychological proof or dismissed the PTD application. | Claimant sought PTD based solely on physical conditions; psychological evidence was not necessary. | Court: No abuse—claimant pursued PTD based only on physical conditions, so psychological evidence was not required. |
| Whether mandamus relief was appropriate to correct start date only. | Sought vacatur of PTD award and denial of compensation. | Sought affirmation of PTD and proper start date tied to relied-upon report. | Court: Denied writ to overturn PTD (some evidence supports it) but granted a limited writ ordering start date be June 8, 2015. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dingus v. Quinn Dev. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d 580 (1994) (medical evidence that was not relied upon by the commission is immaterial to the start date of benefits)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (mandamus appropriate only when commission’s order is unsupported by any evidence)
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (if record contains some evidence supporting commission’s findings, no abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (commission must state what evidence it relied upon and explain reasoning)