State ex rel. Barnett v. Indus. Comm., 2015 Ohio 3898

Barnett, a school bus driver, injured her back in 2011; claim allowed for multiple lumbar conditions and she stopped working.
Bureau and MCO personnel concluded Barnett was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation; DHO denied vocational rehab on October 22, 2013.
Multiple physicians: Dr. Davis (bureau exam) found Barnett MMI and incapable of any work; Dr. Kennington and Dr. Powers (commission examiner) found she could perform light/sedentary work; Dr. Powers concluded 15% whole-body impairment and sedentary capacity.
Barnett applied for permanent total disability (PTD) compensation on December 20, 2013; SHO denied PTD after a July 18, 2014 hearing, relying on Dr. Powers and nonmedical factors (age, education, work history).
SHO’s order incorrectly stated Barnett made no effort to obtain training/rehabilitation, though records show appeals seeking feasibility for vocational rehab; Barnett petitioned for a writ of mandamus to overturn the SHO denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SHO's incorrect statement that Barnett made no effort to obtain vocational training required a writ	Barnett: SHO misstated facts about her efforts and relied on that to deny PTD, violating Noll and requiring remand	Commission: The erroneous sentence is severable; denial rests on medical opinion and other nonmedical findings, not on rehab failure	Denied writ — error was severable and did not render denial unsupported by some evidence
Whether Commission abused discretion by treating Barnett’s work history as a vocational asset without identifying specific transferable skills	Barnett: SHO used boilerplate "varied work history" and asserted transferable skills without specifying them, violating Noll and related precedents	Commission: Identified specific abilities (follow directions, work with public, store responsibilities) as vocational assets; adjudicator may interpret nonmedical factors	Held no abuse — articulating demonstrated abilities was sufficient; lack of detailed "transferable skills" did not mandate PTD

State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (Noll requires orders to state relied-upon evidence and reasoning)
State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 693 (PTD inquiry focuses on ability to do sustained remunerative employment)
State ex rel. Kinsey v. Bd. of Trustees of the Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund of Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d 224 (mandamus standard; "some evidence" supports commission finding)
State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 26 Ohio St.3d 197 ("some evidence" standard for commission discretion)
State ex rel. Ewart v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 139 (nonmedical factors subject to adjudicator interpretation; lack of transferable skills does not mandate PTD)
State ex rel. LeVan v. Young's Shell Service, 80 Ohio St.3d 55 (criticized boilerplate "wide and varied" descriptions of work history)
State ex rel. Rhoten v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 8 (commission must identify transferable skills when not self-evident)
State ex rel. Bruner v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 243 (concern over unidentified transferable skills derived from unskilled jobs)
State ex rel. Pierce v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 275 (commission’s general references to transferable skills insufficient without specifics)