State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion), 125 N.E.3d 844

Mary Mignella filed for permanent-total-disability (PTD) benefits and submitted a treating-chiropractor’s report concluding she was incapable of work.
The Industrial Commission had Mignella examined by Dr. Elizabeth Mease, who reported limited capabilities but later admitted in deposition she failed to follow AMA guidelines when examining Mignella.
An Industrial Commission Staff Hearing Officer (SHO) found Dr. Mease’s exam flawed and ordered a second commission specialist examination; Mignella did not attend the scheduled exam.
The SHO suspended Mignella’s PTD application pending her submission to the new commission-chosen medical exam, citing R.C. 4123.53 authority to require examinations and suspend claims for refusals.
Mignella sought a writ of procedendo in the court of appeals to compel the Commission to adjudicate without a second exam; the court denied the writ. She appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission may require a second medical exam after a commission specialist’s flawed exam	Mignella: Once examined by a commission specialist, she cannot be forced to undergo another exam merely because the specialist erred	Commission: R.C. 4123.53(A) permits examinations “at any time, and from time to time,” and the SHO identified why a second exam was necessary	The Commission may order another exam when the record shows the additional exam is necessary or would assist adjudication; suspension for refusal was proper
Whether oral argument should be granted	Mignella: Case is of great public importance and involves complex issues warranting oral argument	State: Written briefs and record suffice; no demonstrated need for oral argument	Motion for oral argument denied; court found briefs adequate and no exceptional reason to hear argument

State ex rel. Clark v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 509 (1997) (commission has broad discretion to require medical exams but abuses discretion if record fails to show additional exams are necessary or helpful)
Bertolino v. Indus. Comm., 43 Ohio St.3d 44 (1989) (writ of procedendo is an extraordinary remedy to compel a tribunal to act)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (procedendo elements: clear duty to act, clear right, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Taylor v. Indus. Comm., 71 Ohio St.3d 582 (1995) (writ of mandamus ordered PTD award where remaining evidence overwhelmingly supported award after discounting flawed report)
State ex rel. Parks v. Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 22 (1999) (statutory/regulatory conflict rules and use of R.C. 1.51 to reconcile regulations)
Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231 (2001) (no conflict if two administrative provisions can be construed to give effect to both)