State Ex Rel. Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
127 Ohio St. 3d 385
Ohio2010Background
- Stevens, injured in 1998, has significant back conditions and later developed nonindustrial breathing and edema problems.
- In 2006 physician Ware limited Stevens to sedentary work and concluded she unlikely could sustain employment.
- A 2006 FCE by Brinkman found capacity at sedentary level above waist and less than sedentary below waist, considering only current allowed conditions.
- A May 2007 BVR letter noted Stevens’s health declined and that prior FCE results were now invalid due to new problems.
- The Industrial Commission awarded permanent total disability (PTD) in 2008, relying on the three documents above.
- Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed, requiring consideration of Stephenson factors (nonmedical factors) in PTD analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Stephenson apply when allowed conditions alone foreclose work? | Stevens argues Stephenson factors unnecessary if allowed conditions foreclose. | Nissin argues Stephenson factors are needed only when nonallowed conditions contribute. | Allowed conditions alone foreclose work; Stephenson factors not required. |
| Can nonallowed conditions alter PTD when they contribute to disability? | Stevens contends nonallowed conditions may not defeat PTD if allowed conditions preclude work. | Nissin asserts disability cannot be attributed to nonallowed factors for PTD. | Nonallowed conditions cannot independently defeat PTD when allowed conditions preclude work. |
| Is rehabilitation participation relevant to PTD when it fails due to nonindustrial health problems? | Stevens claims rehab relevance depends on whether it could improve employment prospects. | Nissin contends rehab outcomes are material only if Stephenson factors are considered and applicable. | Rehabilitation failure is irrelevant if evidence supports allowable-conditions precluding all work. |
| Should the court remand to assess Stephenson factors or BVR closure once PTD is supported? | Stevens favors remand for Stephenson review and BVR status. | Nissin argues no remand needed if allowed conditions alone establish PTD. | Courts may forego Stephenson/BVR review; allowed conditions support PTD without remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (1987) (establishes Stephenson factors for nonmedical disability analysis)
- State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm., 67 Ohio St.3d 452 (1993) (cannot offset PTD by nonallowed conditions when allowed conditions preclude work)
- State ex rel. Haygood v. Indus. Comm., 60 Ohio St.3d 38 (1991) (nonmedical factors considered in PTD (Stephenson factors))
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 250 (1997) (rehabilitation relevance to PTD where possible)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., 79 Ohio St.3d 266 (1997) (commission as expert; deference in evidentiary weight)
- State ex rel. Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Haygood, 60 Ohio St.3d 38 (1991) (precedes Waddle on evaluation of medical vs. nonmedical factors)
- Fox v. Indus. Comm., 162 Ohio St. 569 (1955) (discusses allocation of disability between allowed and nonallowed conditions)