Case ID: ohio-st-3d_69/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     \n      Moyer, C.J., Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Soto, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Soto v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 146.]
    (No. 93-956
    Submitted March 1, 1994
    Decided April 27, 1994.)
    
      
      Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Mare J. Jaffy; Hahn, Swadey & Pollock and Victor Hahn, for appellant.
    
      Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
    
      Michael J. Scherach, Law Director, and Robert J. Gargasz, Assistant Law Director, for appellee city of Lorain.
   Per Curiam.

The commission concedes that its order does not adequately explain its reasoning, contrary to Noll, supra. We must decide whether to: (1) return the cause for further Noll proceedings or (2) issue a writ compelling a permanent total disability compensation award pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. Upon review, we elect the latter option.

Gay dispenses with commission “remand” in those situations where the commission’s result simply cannot be justified by any evidence of record. In this case, claimant, at best, is limited to work that does not entail lifting his right arm above his waist. While this may be consistent with sedentary employment, claimant’s English illiteracy, lack of schooling and history of heavy labor are irreconcilable with opportunities of that type. As was the case in Gay, “[applying the factors cited by the commission to deny permanent total disability compensation crosses the line from questionable to ludicrous.” Id. at 323, 626 N.E.2d at 672.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the writ of mandamus is allowed.

Judgment reversed and unit allowed.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J.,

dissents and would reverse on authority of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Wright, J.,

dissents for the reasons stated in the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion in State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.