State Ex Rel. Wyrick v. Industrial Commission
138 Ohio St. 3d 465
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Charles G. Wyrick injured his left shoulder and neck in a 2006 workplace fall; claim allowed for rotator cuff tear and other left‑upper‑extremity injuries.
- Wyrick filed (Feb. 2010) for scheduled compensation for loss of use of his left arm, supported by his treating physician Dr. George Griffin, who opined the arm was functionally lost.
- The Industrial Commission obtained an independent exam from Dr. D. Ann Middaugh, who found loss of the rotator cuff but concluded there remained “significant remaining function” of the left upper extremity so long as the elbow stayed at waist level.
- A staff hearing officer denied Wyrick’s request, relying on Dr. Middaugh’s report; the court of appeals denied a mandamus writ challenging that decision.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether Dr. Middaugh’s report constituted “some evidence” to support the commission’s denial and whether the report was internally consistent with the legal standard for loss of use "for all practical intents and purposes."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Middaugh used the correct legal standard (loss of use = "for all practical intents and purposes") | Wyrick: Middaugh failed to apply the proper "practical purposes" standard, so her report is legally flawed and cannot be some evidence. | IC: Middaugh used an appropriate standard; not using the word "practical" is not fatal when read in context. | Court: Middaugh did not use an incorrect legal standard. |
| Whether Middaugh’s report is "some evidence" supporting denial of scheduled loss benefits | Wyrick: Report is internally inconsistent (findings show severe limitation; conclusion finds "significant remaining function") and thus cannot support denial. | IC: Commission credited Middaugh; weight/credibility are for the commission to decide and her report supports denial. | Court: Middaugh’s findings are internally inconsistent; her report cannot constitute some evidence. |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by denying benefits | Wyrick: Yes — denial rested on an invalid/inconsistent report; only other competent report favors award. | IC: No — commission reasonably relied on Middaugh; no gross abuse of discretion. | Court: Commission abused its discretion; writ granted and award ordered. |
| Remedy (remand vs. award) | Wyrick: Immediate award because only other medical evidence (Dr. Griffin) supports loss-of-use. | IC: Commission should be allowed to reassess if Middaugh excluded. | Court: No remand; Griffin’s uncontradicted report entitles Wyrick to award—writ granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Moorehead v. Indus. Comm., 857 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 2006) ("loss" under R.C. 4123.57(B) includes loss of use)
- State ex rel. Alcoa Bldg. Prods. v. Indus. Comm., 810 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio 2004) (loss of use need not be absolute; standard is loss "for all practical intents and purposes")
- State ex rel. Lopez v. Indus. Comm., 633 N.E.2d 528 (Ohio 1994) (an internally inconsistent medical report cannot be "some evidence")
- State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm, 626 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio 1994) (when only one competent medical report supports claim, court may order award rather than remand)
- State ex rel. Franks v. Indus. Comm., 788 N.E.2d 1050 (Ohio 2003) (mandamus framework for correcting commission abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 846 N.E.2d 1245 (Ohio 2006) (review limited to whether there is some evidence supporting the commission)
- State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 658 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio) (deference to commission on weight and credibility of evidence)