Summary
In State ex rel. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 91, 551 N.E.2d 155, the claimant's inability to work was undisputed.
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Peabody Coal Co. v. Indus. CommOpinion
No. 88-1774
Submitted November 7, 1989 —
Decided February 28, 1990.
Workers' compensation — Evidentiary review of commission's decision cannot proceed where the order does not address the critical issue of whether the claimant's inability to work is due to his allowed conditions or to his other medical problems — Review is limited to that evidence specifically relied on by the commission.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 87AP-116.
Claimant-appellee ("claimant"), William H. Graham, injured his low back while in the course of and arising from his employment with appellant, General American Transportation Corporation. He also has serious coronary, vascular and respiratory problems unrelated to his industrial injury.
Appellant eventually moved to terminate claimant's temporary total disability compensation. An Industrial Commission ("commission") district hearing officer denied appellant's motion, finding:
"* * * [T]hat the claimant was employed as a lift truck operator at the time of injury. It is further * * * [found] that the claimant is incapable of substantially resuming the tasks and responsibilities making up the claimant's former position of employment. Based on State, ex rel. [Ramirez, v. Indus. Comm.], 69 Ohio St.2d 630, (1982) and I.C. resolution dated 7/26/82; it is hereby ordered that the claimant continues to be temporarily and totally disabled.
"Employer is directed to continue to pay Temporary Total compensation upon submission of medical evidence of total disability.
"The Hearing Officer, in making this finding, has taken the following evidence into consideration:
"G. Weiner, M.D.: Claimant's Physician's reports in file.
"A. Sparks, M.D.: Employer's Physician's finding indicating that considering only the allowed conditions, the claimant could return to his former position of employment.
"E. Urban, D.O.: State Examiner's finding indicating that the claimant remains unable to return to his former position of employment."
This order was administratively affirmed.
Appellant petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County alleging that in light of claimant's unrelated medical problems, the commission had abused its discretion in awarding temporary total disability compensation. The appellate court, however, found "some evidence" supporting the commission's decision and denied the writ.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Dennis C. Belli and David P. Rieser, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Susan E. Gurwin and Michael L. Squillace, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Timothy R. Hackett, for appellee Graham.
We are again asked to review the commission's order for "some evidence" supporting its award of temporary total disability compensation. For the following reasons, however, we find that evidentiary review cannot proceed at this time.
First, the commission failed to address the key question before it. Temporary-total-compensation eligibility is established where a claimant's allowed conditions cause a temporary disability that prevents a return to his former position of employment. State, ex rel. Ramirez, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O. 3d 518, 433 N.E.2d 586. In the present case, all agree that claimant is unable to return to his former job. The key question is whether this inability is due to the claimant's allowed conditions or to his other medical problems.
The commission's order does not address this critical issue. It merely confirms that a work-prohibitive disability exists. Without a clear commission statement on causal relationship, evidentiary review is impossible.
Second, our review is limited to that evidence specifically relied on by the commission. State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins Myers, Inc. (1984), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721. Under Mitchell, the commission must "specifically state which evidence and only that evidence which has been relied upon to reach [its] conclusion * * *." Id. at 483-484, 6 OBR at 534, 453 N.E.2d at 724. Here, the commission appears to have listed all the evidence considered, instead of narrowing its citation to the evidence on which it relied. This conclusion is suggested by the order's language and by simple logic — the commission could not have relied on both Dr. Sparks and Dr. Urban in concluding that claimant was temporarily and totally disabled due to the allowed conditions. It is thus unclear which of the doctors' reports are properly before us.
On authority of Mitchell and State, ex rel. Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 105, 518 N.E.2d 1194, the appellate judgment is hereby reversed and a limited writ of mandamus is allowed directing the commission to issue an amended order: (1) addressing the causal relationship issue, and (2) listing only that evidence relied on to reach its conclusion.
Judgment reversed and limited writ allowed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.