State ex rel. Bales v. Indus. Comm., 2017 Ohio 947

Background

Bonnie S. Stallard Bales injured her back while working as a home‑health aide/nurse in 2008; allowed conditions include thoracic/lumbar sprains and aggravation of degenerative disc disease at L4‑S1. She has not had surgery and received a 12% PPD award. Last worked in 2009; at time of proceedings she was 57–59 years old with two BS degrees (education, nursing).
A 10/16/2013 FCE by PT Steven Rau found marked limits: sitting tolerance ~20 continuous minutes, standing ~10 continuous minutes, limited walking (260 yards/6 minutes), low lifting capacity; concluded she could not return to her former home‑health nurse job.
Treating physician Michael Viau (3/4/2014) opined PTD; vocational evaluator Amy Corrigan (8/2014) identified transferable skills and ~20 sedentary jobs but closed rehab as not feasible; no individualized plan was adopted.
Examining physician Jon A. Elias (12/3/2014) found 8% whole‑person impairment and opined Bales could perform sedentary work, giving no specific continuous‑sitting/standing limitations (noting claimant self‑reported those limits).
An Industrial Commission SHO (3/10/2015) denied PTD, relying on Dr. Elias and non‑medical factors (education, high cognitive ability, retraining potential); reconsideration denied and this mandamus challenge followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rau's FCE restrictions (20 min sit / 10 min stand) preclude classification as "sedentary work" and require PTD	Rau's objective FCE shows continuous sitting/standing limits inconsistent with sedentary jobs; commission abused discretion by accepting sedentary capacity	Commission relied on Dr. Elias (physician) who opined sedentary capacity; Rau is a PT whose restrictions do not control PTD eligibility under OAC rule requiring physician evidence	Court held commission did not abuse discretion; Rau's FCE did not override physician opinion and commission permissibly found sedentary capacity
Whether vocational evidence or rehab closure establishes inability to retrain for sedentary work	Vocational file/closure shows rehabilitation infeasible and inability to be retrained	Vocational report identified transferable skills and potential sedentary jobs; closure followed a medical report the commission did not rely on	Court held vocational materials did not show inability to be retrained and commission reasonably found retraining potential based on education and vocational evidence
Standard of review: whether some evidence supports commission denial of PTD	Bales: no some‑evidence support because FCE restrictions conflict with sedentary definition	Commission: some evidence exists (Dr. Elias + non‑medical factors); commission determines credibility/weight	Court applied "some evidence" standard and found record (Dr. Elias plus vocational/non‑medical factors) supports denial
Role of non‑physician evidence (e.g., PT FCE) in PTD determinations	FCE should control where it documents functional limits inconsistent with sedentary work	Non‑physician reports are evidence but OAC 4121‑3‑34 requires medical evidence from physicians/psychologists for PTD applications; commission may rely on physician reports	Court held physical‑therapist FCE does not supplant required physician medical evidence and commission may credit physician opinion

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 693 (1994) (PTD inquiry focuses on ability to perform any sustained remunerative employment)
State ex rel. Libecap v. Indus. Comm., 83 Ohio St.3d 178 (1998) (where accepted medical restrictions are inconsistent with sedentary work, commission may have abused discretion)
State ex rel. Toth v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 360 (1997) (part‑time work can constitute sustained remunerative employment)
State ex rel. DeSalvo v. May Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 231 (2000) (if claimant can work >4 hours/day by combining sitting/standing/walking, commission may find employability)
State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (mandamus standards: clear legal right, clear legal duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (1987) ("some evidence" standard governs review of commission orders)
State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (commission must state evidence relied upon and briefly explain reasoning)