Summary
In Yance, the claimant retired two days before he filed a claim for coal miner's pneumoconiosis, and the commission awarded temporary total disability payments from the date of claimant's retirement.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Reliance Electric Co. v. WrightOpinion
No. 90-2347
Submitted January 14, 1992 —
Decided April 15, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 88AP-1179.
Appellee-claimant, Frank Yance, was a miner for appellant, Consolidation Coal Company, from 1934 through his January 5, 1976 retirement. Two days after retiring, he filed an occupational disease claim the appellee, Industrial Commission ("the commission"), alleging that he had contracted coal miners' pneumoconiosis in the course of his employment. His claim was eventually allowed and temporary total disability compensation was awarded from January 5, 1976.
In 1986, appellant moved to terminate claimant's temporary total disability compensation, alleging, among other things, that claimant had voluntarily retired. Before the motion was heard, claimant filed for permanent total disability benefits. In December 1986, a district hearing officer denied appellant's motion to terminate. The district hearing officer found that claimant's retirement was injury-induced and therefore involuntary. Temporary total compensation was continued pending processing of claimant's permanent total disability motion pursuant to existing commission policy. Appellant appealed the order, but the appeal was never processed.
After a hearing held on October 18, 1988, the commission awarded permanent total disability compensation based "particularly upon the reports of Doctors Daneshvari, Giraldo and Hernando [ sic, Hernando Bernal], a consideration of the claimant's age, education, work history and other disability factors including physical, psychological and sociological, that are contained within the Statement of Facts prepared for the hearing on the instant Application, the evidence in the file and the evidence adduced at the hearing."
Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, arguing, inter alia, that the commission did not adequately explain the reasons for its decision and also failed to consider the effect of claimant's retirement. The appellate court rejected appellant's challenge, finding that "Dr. Daneshvari's report, plus specific consideration of nonmedical factors by the commission, would constitute `some evidence' to support the commission's finding that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled. * * *" Although the court did not discuss claimant's retirement, the court adopted the report of its referee, which rejected appellant's argument that the commission abused its discretion in failing to address the issue.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Hanlon, Duff Paleudis Co., L.P.A., and John G. Paleudis, for appellant.
Paul A. Pachuta, for appellee Frank Yance.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Two questions are presented: Should the cause be returned to the commission for: (1) consideration of the effect of claimant's retirement? and (2) additional explanation pursuant to State, ex rel. Noll, v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245? For the reasons to follow, the cause is returned for further consideration.
State, ex rel. Chrysler Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 193, 580 N.E.2d 1082, recently declared that voluntary retirement precludes receipt of permanent total disability benefits. In this case, the circumstances precipitating claimant's retirement are particularly relevant since claimant retired before even alleging that he had an occupational disease. If claimant voluntarily removed himself from the workplace for reasons unrelated to his industrial condition, he is ineligible for permanent total disability, even if his condition later deteriorates to the point where claimant would be medically unable to work. While a commission district hearing officer once found that claimant's retirement was involuntary, appellant appealed that decision. The commission, however, never acted on that appeal and the issue was never conclusively resolved.
Appellant correctly states that the commission's boilerplate explanation does not satisfy Noll. A Noll remand, however, is presently unnecessary under our decision in State, ex rel. Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Industries, Inc., v. Haygood (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 38, 573 N.E.2d 60. Haygood held that medical evidence of permanent total impairment, without more, could support a permanent total disability award, negating a need for remand where Noll had been violated. In the present case, Dr. Bernal, on whom the commission specifically relied, stated that claimant was "100% disabled as results [ sic] of coal workers' pneumoconiosis." Dr. Bernal's report renders harmless the commission's failure to elaborate on the combination of medical and nonmedical factors relevant to its decision.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed in part and a limited writ is issued returning the cause to the commission for further inquiry into the nature of claimant's retirement.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
RESNICK, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
I would affirm the court of appeals in its entirety. There is no need to issue a limited writ for purposes of an inquiry into the nature of claimant's retirement.