State ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 360

Background

In 2006 Inge Fox injured her left arm/hand while employed by Manpower; her workers’ compensation claim was allowed for medical and psychological conditions.
Fox applied in 2013 for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation and submitted two July 10, 2012 reports from psychologist/vocational expert Kenneth J. Manges, Ph.D.
The Industrial Commission had Fox examined by James T. Lutz, M.D., and Thomas W. Heitkemper, Ph.D.; both examiners concluded she had reached maximum medical improvement and could not engage in sustained remunerative employment.
The Commission awarded PTD benefits based solely on medical impairment from allowed conditions and stated it need not address nonmedical factors.
Manpower sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing the Commission’s decision was not supported by sufficient/reliable evidence and violated the State ex rel. Noll requirement to state relied-upon evidence and reasoning; the appeals court denied relief.
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, holding there was some evidence supporting the award and that the Commission complied with Noll.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Manpower)	Defendant's Argument (Commission/Fox)	Held
Whether the Commission’s PTD award is supported by some evidence	Dr. Manges relied on nonmedical factors and examiners’ reports were equivocal or unreliable, so record lacks some evidence	Reports of Drs. Manges, Lutz, Heitkemper provide some evidence Fox cannot perform sustained remunerative employment	Affirmed — some evidence supports the award
Whether Dr. Manges’ opinion improperly relied on nonmedical factors	Manges’ impairment report emphasized nonmedical factors to conclude disability	Court found Manges rendered an opinion attributing total disability to psychological impairments from the allowed conditions, without relying on nonmedical factors	Rejected Manpower’s challenge to Manges’ report
Whether Dr. Lutz’s report was too equivocal given Fox’s ability to do some daily activities	Manpower: Lutz’s acknowledgement of light household tasks contradicts incapacity to work	Commission: Lutz described constant pain and severe flare-ups that precluded work despite limited ADLs	Rejected; Lutz’s report did not undermine conclusion of inability to work
Whether Dr. Heitkemper’s use of the word “medical” undermines his opinion as a psychologist	Manpower: labeling undermines evidentiary value	Commission: Ohio Adm.Code permits psychologists to provide “medical” evidence for PTD evaluations	Rejected; Heitkemper’s report counted as medical/psychological evidence
Whether the Commission complied with Noll’s requirement to identify evidence and reasoning	Manpower: order failed to specifically state evidence relied upon and briefly explain reasoning	Commission: order specifically referenced the medical reports and explained reliance on allowed-condition impairments to award PTD	Rejected; Noll requirement satisfied

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (establishes requirement that Commission specifically state evidence relied upon and briefly explain reasoning)
State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (nonmedical factors considered when medical impairment alone does not preclude work)
State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 480 (mandamus standard: clear right, duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 237 (review in PTD cases: court asks whether some evidence supports Commission)
State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (weight/credibility of evidence are for the Commission)
State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 176 (reviewing court must not assess credibility where some evidence exists)
State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373 (if supported by some evidence Commission’s decision is not an abuse of discretion)