Case ID: ohio-st-3d_94/html/0036-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lundberg Stratton, J., Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex rel. Akers, Appellant, v. Robertshaw Controls et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Akers v. Robertshaw Controls (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 36.]
    
      (No. 01-829
    Submitted November 13, 2001
    Decided January 9, 2002.)
    
      Robert M. Robinson, for appellant.
    
      Roetzel & Andress, Charles D. Smith and Noel C. Shepard, for appellee Robertshaw Controls.
    
      Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey B. Hartranft, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
   The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for relief consistent with State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Cook, J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would also reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. However, I would not grant Gay relief. The commission has not yet determined the extent of claimant’s psychological claim, so Gay relief is inappropriate. The matter should be returned to the commission to conduct such an analysis. Gay relief is premature. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s decision to grant Gay relief.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in the court of appeals’ opinion and the decision of its magistrate.