Summary
In Consolidation Coal, an employer sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals after the Industrial Commission found that an employee, who had coal miner's pneumoconiosis, was totally disabled.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Ramirez, v. Indus. CommOpinion
No. 78-375
Decided May 9, 1979.
Mandamus — Workers' compensation — To compel commission to vacate order — Writ denied, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
This is a mandamus action initiated in the Court of Appeals by the Consolidation Coal Co., appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2731.04, seeking to prevent the payment of Workers' Compensation benefits to Frank W. Hall, claimant-appellee herein.
Claimant, a former employee of appellant, applied for Workers' Compensation benefits claiming total disability due to coal miner's pneumoconiosis. The administrator found that, although the claimant had contracted pneumoconiosis, he was not totally disabled. The Canton Regional Board of Review affirmed. However, the Industrial Commission reversed and found that the claimant had become totally disabled.
Appellant then filed an original action in the Court of Appeals alleging that the commission's finding that claimant is totally disabled due to his contracting pneumoconiosis is not supported by any evidence in the record. Appellant conceded that the record established that the claimant is suffering from pneumoconiosis, but maintained that there is no evidence in the record to show the proximate relationship between the disease and the finding that the claimant is "totally disabled."
The Court of Appeals, in upholding the commission and denying the writ, quoted from the medical report of Dr. Aniceto P. Caneiro as follows:
"III A. [Diagnosis] * * *
"* * *
"2. Chronic Bronchitis
"3. Pneumoconiosis
"[III] B. In your opinion is the diagnosed condition related to dust exposure in patient's coal mine employment? Yes.
"* * *
"IV. * * * This patient should be restricted from any activity that requires effort, due to his history of shortness of breath.
"V. * * * This patient is totally disabled from engaging in any further coal mine employment."
The Court of Appeals found this report to be sufficient evidence to support the commission's finding.
Relator's motion for appeal to this court was granted; his request for oral argument was denied. The cause is now before this court as a matter of right.
Messrs. Kinder, Kinder Hanlon and Mr. Gerald P. Duff, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Solomon Hertzel Basch, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Mr. Paul A. Pachuta, for appellee Frank W. Hall.
The instant cause having originated in the Court of Appeals, this court is obligated, pursuant to Section 2, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to review it. Having done so, we find no merit in relator's appeal. The issue presented here is whether the commission's finding of total disability is unsupported by any evidence in the record, resulting in an abuse of discretion subject to correction by an action in mandamus. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 278, 282-283; State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16. However, this court has quite clearly held that the commission does not abuse its discretion where the record contains sufficient evidence to support its factual findings. State, ex rel. Rockwell Internat., v. Indus. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 96, 97-98; State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., supra, at page 283. See, also, State ex rel. Moon, v. Daugherty (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 17; State, ex rel. Mees, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 128; State, ex rel. Stuber, v. Indus Comm. (1933), 127 Ohio St. 325. Therefore, only where there is no evidence of probative value in the record will a writ of mandamus be granted. A review of the record reveals that the finding of the commission is supported by evidence of probative value.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
HOLMES, J., not participating because he was a Judge of the Court of Appeals which heard the case.