State ex rel. Tradesmen International v. Industrial Commission
143 Ohio St. 3d 336
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Raymond Smith was injured at work in 2003; his claim was allowed for multiple back, neck, shoulder, wrist, pain‑related, and psychological conditions.
- In April 2011 Smith’s treating physician, Dr. DePaz, reported Smith was limited to sedentary activity, max 10 lb lifting, needed frequent rest (including lying down), and could not maintain a regular work schedule.
- The Industrial Commission obtained additional medical reports (Drs. McCormick and Orlando) opining Smith could not work due to the allowed conditions.
- A staff hearing officer awarded permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation, relying on the three medical reports and stating the award was based solely on medical factors.
- Tradesmen sought a writ of mandamus arguing the Commission abused its discretion by using the DePaz report to set the PTD start date (April 26, 2011) without separately considering nonmedical disability factors.
- The Tenth District and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: the DePaz report provided some evidence to support the Commission’s chosen start date and the Commission did not need to evaluate nonmedical factors given its reliance on medical evidence alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DePaz's April 26, 2011 report is "some evidence" supporting the PTD start date | DePaz did not list allowed conditions and said claimant could perform sedentary work, so report alone cannot fix start date | DePaz was the treating physician, described back pain and severe restrictions that effectively precluded sustained work; report is some evidence | DePaz's report is some evidence; Commission may rely on it to set start date |
| Whether the Commission had to assess nonmedical disability factors before adopting DePaz date | Commission must examine nonmedical factors if medical opinion is not solely medical or is ambiguous | Because Commission relied on medical evidence alone and DePaz’s restrictions were medically based and tied to allowed conditions, nonmedical review was unnecessary | No need to examine nonmedical factors; award based solely on medical factors was permissible |
| Whether a physician’s failure to verbatim list allowed conditions invalidates the report | Omission of exact claim language renders the report unreliable | Commission may infer doctor referred to allowed conditions if context supports it | Omission is not fatal where treating physician’s report reasonably refers to allowed conditions |
| Whether an apparent conflict between stated capacity (sedentary) and detailed restrictions precludes reliance | If restrictions are so limiting that they contradict an ability-to-work conclusion, report cannot support decision | Commission must assess whether the detailed restrictions effectively preclude work; here it could conclude they did | Court upheld Commission’s evaluation of the entire report and its conclusion that restrictions supported PTD |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 508 N.E.2d 936 (Ohio 1987) (mandamus review limited to whether some evidence supports the Commission)
- State ex rel. Richardson v. Quarto Mining Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 358, 652 N.E.2d 1027 (Ohio 1995) (medical opinion that fails to consider allowed conditions cannot alone be some evidence)
- State ex rel. Jeffrey Mining Mach. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 56 Ohio St.3d 91, 564 N.E.2d 437 (Ohio 1990) (Commission may infer a doctor’s terminology refers to allowed conditions)
- State ex rel. Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Haygood, 60 Ohio St.3d 38, 573 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 1991) (when award is based solely on medical factors, Commission need not evaluate nonmedical disability factors)