State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Harmon (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 4003

Timothy Bonnlander suffered a compensable work-related injury in 1992 and later developed allowed physical conditions and depressive disorder; he last worked in December 2008.
In February 2014 he applied for permanent-total-disability (PTD) benefits and submitted a report from his treating psychologist.
Commission-appointed examiners Dr. Brannan (medical) and Dr. Sinha (psychological) examined Bonnlander; Dr. Brannan found capability for sedentary work, and Dr. Sinha opined Bonnlander could work part-time ‘‘up to 4 hours a day’’ with limits (routine tasks, minimal new learning, multiple breaks).
A staff hearing officer adopted those examiners’ restrictions and concluded Bonnlander could perform part-time sedentary work up to four hours daily and thus was not permanently and totally disabled.
Bonnlander sought a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing the commission’s order was unsupported by evidence because multiple breaks rendered four hours of work infeasible; the Tenth District denied the writ (2–1). The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an hourly threshold (e.g., 4 hours/day) is required to find capability for part-time sustained remunerative employment	Bonnlander: multiple breaks mean Dr. Sinha’s ‘‘up to 4 hours’’ opinion does not show ability to perform sustained remunerative work; court of appeals’ 4-hour standard should apply against commission finding	Industrial Commission: no bright-line hourly rule; commission has discretion to assess sustained remunerative employment case-by-case and may rely on examiner opinions	No hourly bright-line rule; commission decides case-by-case; it permissibly relied on Dr. Sinha’s opinion that Bonnlander could perform up to four hours of sedentary work with breaks
Whether Dr. Sinha’s report is some evidence supporting denial of PTD	Bonnlander: report’s allowance for ‘‘multiple breaks’’ undermines any finding that he can sustain work even for four hours	Commission: Dr. Sinha’s limits and opinion constitute evidence that Bonnlander can do part-time sedentary work; weight/credibility are for the commission	Dr. Sinha’s report was some evidence supporting the commission’s order; no abuse of discretion found

State ex rel. Pressley v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (mandamus requires clear legal right and clear duty)
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (an order unsupported by any evidence is abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. McDaniel v. Industrial Commission, 118 Ohio St.3d 319 (numerical count of activities without context is meaningless for PTD analysis)
State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39 (PTD analysis centers on capability for sustained remunerative employment)
State ex rel. Kirby v. Industrial Commission, 97 Ohio St.3d 427 (work is "sustained" if it is an ongoing pattern)
State ex rel. Schultz v. Industrial Commission, 96 Ohio St.3d 27 (discussion of sustained work concept)
State ex rel. Toth v. Industrial Commission, 80 Ohio St.3d 360 (part-time work may constitute sustained employment)
Fisher v. Mayfield, 49 Ohio St.3d 275 (court disfavors bright-line rules in workers’ compensation cases)