State ex rel. Honda of Am., Mfg., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 8972
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ball sustained an August 27, 2001 work injury; industrial claim allowed for multiple lumbar conditions.
- Ball sought PTD benefits in 2010 which the commission initially granted and Honda later challenged via mandamus.
- FCE on November 20, 2014 indicated light-to-medium work capacity with postural adjustments; Medco-14 (Nov. 26, 2014) suggested available work with restrictions.
- Renneker, M.D., examined Ball December 18, 2014; her report included a narrative disability opinion and a Physical Capacity Evaluation (PCE) form with inconsistent findings.
- SHO awarded Ball PTD on September 24, 2015 based solely on Renneker’s report; Honda moved for mandamus; the commission denied reconsideration on December 9, 2015; this court granted a limited writ remanding for proper adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Renneker’s report provides some evidence for PTD. | Honda contends Renneker’s narrative and PCE are internally inconsistent and not some evidence. | Ball contends the report, despite inconsistencies, supports PTD as the basis for the SHO decision. | No; Renneker’s report is not some evidence due to internal inconsistency. |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by relying solely on Renneker and ignoring non-medical factors. | Honda argues misapplication of non-medical factors and improper reliance on one medical opinion. | Ball asserts the commission may rely on medical evidence and non-medical factors need not be analyzed when PTD is established. | Abuse of discretion; remand required to adjudicate with proper evidentiary basis. |
| Whether the court should remand to the commission for a new PTD determination consistent with the magistrate’s analysis. | Honda seeks remand to correct deficiencies and determine PTD with proper evidence. | Ball resists substituting the court’s judgment for the commission's trier-of-fact role. | Yes; limited writ granted to remand for PTD adjudication consistent with the magistrate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Toth v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 360 (1997) (part-time work can be sustained remunerative employment but not all hours qualify)
- State ex rel. Sheller-Chiles v. Indus. Comm., 2014-Ohio-313 (10th Dist. 2014) (four or more hours per day constitutes sustained work; standard applied case-by-case)
- State ex rel. M. Weingold & Co. v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 44 (2002) (inconsistencies between two C-84s from same examination undermine evidence credibility)
- State ex rel. Genuine Parts Co. v. Indus. Comm., 160 Ohio App.3d 99 (2005) (Weingold-based rule: inconsistent physician notes and C-84 lack evidentiary weight)
- State ex rel. Lopez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 445 (1994) (internal inconsistencies in medical reports negate “some evidence”)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Indus. Comm., 71 Ohio St.3d 582 (1995) (internal inconsistencies may defeat reliance on a medical report as evidence)