2020 Ohio 712
Ohio2020Background
- Gary Bisdorf sustained industrial knee (1971) and shoulder (2001) injuries while employed by Navistar; he retired from Navistar in 2003.
- From 2004–2010 he worked part-time at a gun store; the store closed in 2010 and he did not seek new employment.
- In 2015 Bisdorf applied for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation; the Industrial Commission (SHO) granted PTD based on medical reports by Drs. Rutherford and Grunstein.
- Navistar moved for reconsideration arguing the SHO failed to address voluntary retirement/abandonment and that the medical reports were defective; the commission denied reconsideration.
- The Tenth District denied Navistar’s mandamus request to vacate the PTD award; Bisdorf died during the Ohio Supreme Court appeal, but the court allowed the appeal to proceed and affirmed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Navistar) | Defendant's Argument (Commission / Bisdorf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot after claimant's death | Appeal not moot; employer’s interest in state assessments/surplus fund preserves controversy | Claimant’s death abates benefits, but state interests remain | Court proceeded: Youghiogheny reasoning applies; controversy not moot |
| Whether voluntary-abandonment defense had to be raised at SHO | SHO should have addressed voluntary abandonment because record/evidence implicated it; commission abused discretion by ignoring it | Employer must affirmatively raise and produce evidence at the SHO; issue raised first on reconsideration is waived | Held for commission: Navistar failed to bring the defense into issue at the hearing, so SHO was not required to address it |
| Whether commission had to consider nonmedical Stephenson factors because claimant could work part‑time (four-hour day) | Claimant could work four hours/day; commission therefore had to weigh age, education, work record before granting PTD | Commission factfinder concluded medical impairments alone precluded any work, so nonmedical factors were unnecessary | Held for commission: no requirement to consider nonmedical factors when medical evidence alone shows incapacity |
| Whether Dr. Rutherford’s opinion was too equivocal to support PTD | Rutherford’s report is conclusory/contradictory and should be disregarded | Even if Rutherford equivocal, Dr. Grunstein’s report supplies some evidence | Court did not decide the issue on merits; reliance on at least one non‑equivocal report means record contains some evidence supporting PTD |
Key Cases Cited
- Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Mayfield, 11 Ohio St.3d 70 (1984) (employer’s appeal survives claimant’s death when state interests preserve controversy)
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (employer must raise voluntary‑abandonment defense at hearing; issues first raised post‑hearing are waived)
- State ex rel. Stevens v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 313 (2015) (voluntary abandonment is an affirmative defense; SHO must address it only if brought into issue)
- State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon, 150 Ohio St.3d 567 (2017) (no hourly rule; commission decides sustained remunerative employment case‑by‑case)
- State ex rel. Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Haygood, 60 Ohio St.3d 38 (1991) (medical factors alone can preclude need to analyze nonmedical factors)
- State ex rel. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. v. Indus. Comm., 153 Ohio St.3d 133 (2018) (SHO must state what evidence was relied upon in reaching conclusions)