State ex rel. R&L Carriers Shared Servs., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 5833
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Claimant Terry Phillips suffered a 2011 workplace injury; allowed conditions included traumatic right biceps tendon tear, complex regional pain syndrome, and severe major depressive disorder with significant anxiety.
- Phillips applied in 2013 for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation; the Industrial Commission’s staff hearing officer awarded PTD based largely on three medical reports (Drs. Soin, Rosen, and Berg).
- Employer R&L moved prehearing to depose two fact witnesses; the commission denied the motion; R&L cross-examined witnesses at hearing.
- On mandamus review, a magistrate found Drs. Soin and Rosen unreliable and recommended eliminating their reports but concluded Dr. Berg’s report provided some evidence supporting PTD; recommended adjusting benefit start date to match Dr. Berg’s report.
- Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s recommendation; R&L appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R&L) | Defendant's Argument (Commission / Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Berg’s report constituted some evidence of PTD | Berg’s form is ambiguous/inconsistent (checked "incapable" but listed limitations consistent with "capable with limitations") so it’s not some evidence | Hearing officer reasonably found Berg’s report coherent and persuasive; commission assesses credibility and weight | Court: Dr. Berg’s report is some evidence; commission didn’t abuse discretion |
| Whether commission had to consider claimant’s failure to retrain | R&L: commission should analyze nonmedical factors (retraining nonparticipation) | Commission: PTD was based solely on medical impairment, so nonmedical factors not required to be considered | Court: Not required to consider retraining where award is based solely on medical impairment |
| Whether commission abused discretion by denying prehearing depositions | R&L: Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-09(A)(2) encourages free exchange of information and permits depositions | Commission: Rule encourages exchange but does not mandate depositions; other discovery and cross-exam existed | Court: Denial of deposition request was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether oral argument should be granted | R&L: requested oral argument | Commission/opposing: briefs sufficient | Court: Denied oral argument; case resolved on briefs |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (commission has exclusive authority to weigh credibility)
- State ex rel. Young v. Indus. Comm., 79 Ohio St.3d 484 (courts may not second-guess medical expertise)
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 250 (commission may consider nonparticipation in reeducation/retraining)
- State ex rel. Gonzales v. Morgan, 131 Ohio St.3d 62 (when PTD based solely on medical impairment, commission need not discuss nonmedical factors)
- State ex rel. Marchiano v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 121 Ohio St.3d 139 (equivocal medical opinions are not evidence)
- State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp., 70 Ohio St.3d 649 (same principle on equivocal medical opinions)
- State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr., Inc., 91 Ohio St.3d 459 (denial of oral argument is within court’s discretion)