State ex rel. Bailey v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion), 139 Ohio St. 3d 295

Bailey filed four workers’ compensation claims (1996–2003) with allowed injuries including right thumb wound, right knee contusion, carpal-tunnel syndrome, and a shoulder injury with psychological conditions (pain disorder and dysthymia).
First PTD application denied May 7, 2009; commission relied on Dr. Reynolds (physical) and Dr. Howard (psychological).
April 20, 2010, commission increased Bailey’s permanent-partial-disability (PPD) percentage, based in part on a 2005 Dr. Drown report noting worsening psychology.
September 2010, Bailey’s treating psychologist requested additional psychotherapy; managed-care organization approved six visits (Sept–Dec 2010) and five more through Mar 2011.
May 23, 2011, commission denied Bailey’s second PTD application, relying on Dr. Howard (Sept. 24, 2009) and Dr. Kearns (physical), not Dr. Hill’s contrary findings.
Bailey filed a mandamus action; magistrate held Dr. Howard’s report not stale; court of appeals denied the writ; the matter proceeds to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Dr. Howard’s 2009 report stale given later developments?	Bailey argues the report became stale due to new psychotherapy and changed circumstances.	Commission found no new/changed circumstances; later treatments do not prove worsening condition.	No abuse; report not stale; evidence supported denial of PTD.
May reliance on Dr. Howard coexist with earlier rejection and the 2010 PPD increase based on older reports?	Bailey contends inconsistency and reliance on stale evidence undermines the decision.	Credibility and weight are for the Commission; PTD vs PPD distinction preserves validity.	No reversible error; commission’s reliance on Howard upheld.

Hiles v. Netcare Corp., 76 Ohio St.3d 404 (1996) (probativeness of medical evidence may erode over time but content matters more than date)
Menold v. Maplecrest Nursing Home, 76 Ohio St.3d 197 (1996) (weight of evidence within commission’s discretion)
Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (1987) (credibility determinations are for the commission)
Zamora v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (inconsistency between rejection and later reliance discussed)
Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (waiver considerations in mandamus review)
Verbanek v. Indus. Comm., 73 Ohio St.3d 562 (1995) (different disability standards may affect probative value)
Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 81 Ohio St.3d 158 (1998) (review limits on weighing medical reports)