State ex rel. Broc N. Root v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 512
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 19, 2012 Broc N. Root's left hand was injured in a press; the left little finger was amputated at the distal phalanx and the middle and ring fingers were partially amputated through the proximal/middle phalanges. Thumb and index retained function.
- Claim allowed for multiple left-finger amputations, fractures, tendon and digital nerve injuries.
- Root sought a C-86 award for total loss of use of the left hand (175 weeks). A DHO granted the award; an SHO vacated it, relying on independent medical exams finding preserved wrist, thumb and index function and that MMI had not been reached. The Commission refused further appeal.
- Medical reports (Drs. Kleinman and Sterle) found full wrist, thumb and index function, partial sensory loss/tip tenderness of middle/ring fingers, and that total loss of the hand was not supported; one doctor found MMI not reached and recommended further therapy.
- Root filed mandamus asking the court to compel the Commission to award total loss under R.C. 4123.57(B). The magistrate and the court denied relief, finding the Commission's denial supported by evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commission failed to perform required analysis under R.C. 4123.57(B) | Root: partial amputations + nerve/tendon injury + pain justify exercising administrator's discretion to increase award up to hand-loss | Commission: statute permits (may), does not compel; record lacked evidence tying finger loss to greater-than-normal handicap for his job | Court: No abuse; statute discretionary and Commission reasonably declined award |
| Whether Commission complied with Noll (explain reasoning) | Root: order insufficiently explanatory under Noll | Commission/SHO: explained denial—insufficient evidence that disability exceeded normal loss-of-fingers handicap | Held: SHO's explanation that relator failed to present evidence satisfies Noll; no deficiency |
| Whether evidence in record compels award (abuse of discretion) | Root: medical reports, nerve/tendon injury, pain, and vocational impact warrant hand award | Commission: medical exams show functional wrist/thumb/index; no vocational proof of greater handicap; relator did not reach MMI or present functional/vocational proof | Held: Some evidence supports SHO decision; no abuse of discretion; mandamus inappropriate |
| Burden to prove increased award and role of vocational/functional evidence | Root: Commission improperly required vocational/functional proof; vocational rehab terminated as infeasible | Commission: burden on claimant to prove loss causes greater-than-normal handicap for his job; absence of job-specific or functional evidence fatal | Held: Claimant bears burden; lack of evidence on job impact and ongoing MMI/therapy justified denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (clear legal right/duty elements for mandamus)
- Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (mandamus standard against the Commission)
- Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (abuse of discretion requires no evidence supporting decision)
- Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (some evidence test defeats mandamus)
- Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (credibility and weight vested in Commission)
- Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (requirements for administrative explanation)