State ex rel. Falgiani v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 719
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Dominic J. Falgiani seeks a writ of mandamus to overturn the Industrial Commission’s denial of permanent total disability (PTD) benefits.
- The Commission denied PTD after considering medical and non-medical factors in evaluating employability.
- Dr. Karen Gade-Pulido opined MMI and light-duty work possible with restrictions (avoid overhead/repetitive use).
- Other physicians (DePerro, Byrnes, Chatterjee) provided conflicting assessments about PTD, muscles, and impairment.
- The SHO and Commission considered non-medical factors (age, education, work history) as positive for re-employment potential.
- Magistrate held no abuse of discretion; the appellate court adopted the magistrate’s decision and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gade-Pulido report inconsistent; does it negate light work? | Falgiani argues overhead/repetitive-use restriction renders light work impossible. | Wood supports some light-work capability despite restrictions. | No abuse; report can support light-work findings. |
| Valentine vocational assessment undermines employability? | Valentine’s testing shows no marketable or transferable skills. | Commission may credit vocational evidence and rely on expert opinions. | Commission may rely on vocational evidence; not an abuse. |
| Non-medical factors adequately explained to enhance employability? | Court failed to explain how positive factors increase re-employment. | SHO explained how age, education, and experience aid re-employment. | Order adequately explains how non-medical factors aid employability. |
| Was mandamus proper given record evidence and standard of review? | Relator argues abuse of discretion requires reversal. | Record contains some evidence supporting Commission’s decision. | Mandamus denied; no clear abuse shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 414 (1997) (foundation for light-duty interpretation; not requiring overhead/constant limitations)
- Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (need for Commission to state evidence relied upon and explain reasoning)
- Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (abuse-of-discretion standard in mandamus; some evidence needed)
- Domjancic v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 693 (1994) (determine PTD by medical and non-medical factors)
- Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (1987) (non-medical factors considered in employability analysis)
- Gay v. Mihm, 68 Ohio St.3d 315 (1994) (medical capacity not dispositive if non-medical factors foreclose)