State Ex Rel. George v. Industrial Commission
130 Ohio St. 3d 405
| Ohio | 2011Background
- George's workers' compensation claim covers right shoulder conditions; initial surgery in 2004 with return to work unrestricted.
- In February 2008 George sought additional shoulder surgery after renewed complaints; Holzaepfel and Hauser examined him.
- Holzaepfel concluded the new complaints were not related to the industrial injury and attributed symptoms to other employment.
- Hauser found no current shoulder pathology related to the claim, though he noted a ruptured biceps tendon not covered by the claim and opined against further shoulder surgery.
- Honda and the Industrial Commission denied authorization for surgery; George filed mandamus; appellate court ordered reconsideration due to inconsistencies in Hauser's report.
- Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding Hauser's report could support the commission's denial and emphasizing proper evaluation of medical opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hauser's report supports denial of treatment | George argues inconsistencies render Hauser's report unreliable | Hauser's report adequately supports denial under strict evidentiary standards | Hauser's report is viable and supports denial |
| Whether inconsistencies in Hauser's report render it unreliable | Inconsistencies render the report equivocal and unusable | Inconsistencies are harmless and do not undermine the critical opinion | Inconsistencies did not affect the critical opinion and were admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Indus. Comm., 71 Ohio St.3d 229 (1994) (establishes causal relationship requirement for medical treatment authorization)
- Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (1987) (the commission may rely on evidence and judge credibility within reason)
- Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp., 70 Ohio St.3d 649 (1994) (distinguishes equivocal versus ambiguous opinions and reliability concerns)
- Lopez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 445 (1994) (clarity on critical issue of work capacity is essential when ethical inconsistencies arise)
- Domjancic v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 693 (1994) (affirms approach to accepting medical opinions despite inconsistencies)
- Jennings v. Indus. Comm., 1 Ohio St.3d 101 (1982) (precludes discounting probative medical opinions merely for minor ambiguities)