State ex rel. Healthcare Servs. Group, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2021 Ohio 2477

James H. Carroll injured his lower back at work on December 14, 2011; the claim was allowed for lumbar sprain and L4-5 disc protrusion.
Carroll applied for permanent total disability (PTD) on April 6, 2018.
Treating physician Dr. Oricoli (Feb. 2017) opined Carroll was permanently disabled and could sit/stand/walk for less than 10 minutes.
Employer-ordered Dr. Rozen opined Carroll could perform sustained sedentary work; commission examiner Dr. Sardo found sedentary capacity with occasional 10-pound exertion.
A commission staff hearing officer (SHO) awarded PTD based on Dr. Oricoli’s report and Carroll’s PTD hearing testimony; the SHO did not analyze non‑medical factors.
Employer (Healthcare) requested reconsideration (denied) and then filed this mandamus action challenging the commission’s award, arguing medical reports and Carroll’s travel/activity testimony impeached the PTD award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission abused its discretion in awarding PTD	The PTD award is unsupported because claimant’s own testimony and conflicting medical reports impeach the treating physician’s opinion	Some evidence (treating physician’s report and claimant testimony) supports PTD; credibility and weight are for the Commission	Denied — no abuse of discretion where some evidence supports the Commission’s finding
Whether claimant’s travel and activity testimony impeaches the medical evidence	Travel/driving and other activities contradict severe functional limits and thus impeach Oricoli’s report	These activities may be inconsistent in degree but do not necessarily impeach the medical evidence; Commission may weigh them and still credit treating opinion	Denied — routine activities are not dispositive; Commission may credit medical report despite inconsistent activities
Whether conflicting medical opinions require denial of PTD	Conflicting opinions (Rozen, Sardo vs. Oricoli) mean no PTD award should stand	Conflicts do not require reversal if some evidence supports the award; Commission decides weight and credibility	Denied — existence of conflicting reports is insufficient where some evidence supports award

State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus standard: relator must show clear legal right and duty)
State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (mandamus when commission order is unsupported by any evidence)
State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (some evidence in record precludes mandamus)
State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981) (credibility and weight for the commission)
State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373 (1996) (existence of contrary evidence does not mandate reversal)
State ex rel. Pilarczyk v. Geauga Cty., 157 Ohio St.3d 191 (2019) (PTD inquiry centers on ability to perform sustained remunerative employment)
State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 693 (1995) (same)
State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (1987) (PTD standard)
State ex rel. Kirby v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 427 (2002) (PTD inappropriate where evidence of actual sustained employment)
State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39 (2004) (routine activities may not automatically disqualify PTD; compare activities with medical restrictions)
State ex rel. Parma Community Gen. Hosp. v. Jankowski, 95 Ohio St.3d 340 (2002) (caution against automatic disqualification for routine tasks)