Case Title: State ex rel. Noland v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-163

Docket Number: 19950856

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. NOLAND, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Noland v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 480.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s order denying permanent 
total disability compensation vacated and cause returned for further 
consideration and amended order when the commission fails to consider all 
the evidence before it. 
(No. 95-856 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided September 24, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD05-655. 
 
On November 23, 1979, appellee-claimant, Vernon Noland, sustained a 
gunshot wound while in the course of and arising from his employment as a police 
officer for the city of Dayton.  His workers’ compensation claim was allowed for 
“laceration to head; right frontal compound depressed skull fracture; dysthymic 
disorder with anxiety.” 
 
In 1987, claimant moved appellant, Industrial Commission of Ohio, for 
permanent total disability compensation.  He accompanied his motion with a 
report from Dr. Peter E. Nims, who wrote: 
 
“After examining Mr. Vernon, it is my opinion that he has a dysthymic 
disorder (D.S.M.-III: 300.40) and that this disorder is of a permanent and total 
nature.  His present condition seems stable and he seems to have reached his 
maximum recovery.  His symptoms of dysphoric mood, a loss of interest, poor 
concentration, feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, insomnia, social 
isolation, and tremulousness would interfere with his ability to work in any 
productive way.” 
 
A combined-effects review by commission specialist Dr. Paul A. Dillahunt 
concluded: 
 
2
 
“The claimant suffers a 0% permanent partial impairment from laceration of 
the head; 2% permanent partial impairment from right frontal compound depressed 
skull fracture; 50% permanent partial impairment from dysthymic disorder with 
anxiety.  Attention is directed to combined values charts, AMA Guides, which 
repor[t] that 0% combined with 2%, combined with 50%, results in 51. 
 
“In view of the claimant’s mental impairment, it is within reasonable 
medical probability and certainty to conclude that claimant is not substantially 
able to perform his former duties of employment and he is permanently unable to 
return to his former occupation of police sergeant which involves management of 
stressful situations.  Although claimant is precluded to [sic] perform the duties of 
his usual and customary occupation, it is not within reasonable medical probability 
and certainty to conclude from the medical proof of record in the industrial claim 
file that claimant is precluded of [sic] performing some other sustained and gainful 
employment.  Claimant is not permanently and totally impaired from the combined 
effects of the allowed conditions of the industrial accident of 11/23/79. 
 
“It is within reasonable medical probability and certainty to conclude after 
reviewing the medical proof of record of the industrial claim file and attention is 
drawn solely to the allowed conditions of the industrial accident of 11/23/79[,] the 
claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work. * * * 
 
“In addition to the orthopedic impairment, it must be noted that claimant’s 
mental 
impairment 
would 
further 
compromise 
claimant’s 
occupational 
opportunities.  The claimant is tensed, nervous, irritable and anxious and can’t 
cope with stress which would indicate [that] claimant should be employed in a low 
stressed [sic] occupation.  Claimant’s memory is intact for recent and remote 
events but claimant’s attention span is short and the ability to concentrate is poor 
which would compromise claimant’s ability to carry out detailed instructions or to 
 
3
maintain attention and concentration for extended periods.  Claimant has social 
withdrawal with no social life which would compromise claimant’s ability to work 
in coordination with or proximity to others without being distracted by them.  The 
claimant retains the ability to comprehend and reason which indicates claimant has 
ability to make simple work related decisions.” 
 
Claimant was referred to the commission’s rehabilitation division for 
evaluation of his rehabilitation potential.  During the course of his evaluation, 
claimant experienced an explosive psychiatric incident and was admitted to the 
hospital for crisis stabilization.  When contacted by the rehabilitation division with 
regard to resumption of rehabilitation, attending psychiatrist Dr. Charles 
Bensonhaver responded: 
 
“1.  What is the claimant’s diagnosis and prognosis? 
 
“Primary diagnosis is dysthymic disorder.  Secondary diagnosis is post 
traumatic stress disorder, dependent personality disorder, history of alcoholism.  
Prognosis is guarded, except for alcoholism, fair. 
 
“2.  When will the claimant be able to resume an active rehabilitation 
program? 
 
“Doubtful if this can happen at least within the next year, possibly never.  A 
program structured such as at the Camera Center would be a total failure. 
 
“3.  What recommendations (if any) would you suggest for the rehabilitation 
plan? 
 
“None of merit comes to me at this time.” 
 
A report from commission psychologist Dr. Kenneth Tecklenburg was also 
obtained by the Rehabilitation Division.  Under the heading, “Barriers to Re-
Employment/Recommendations,” Dr. Tecklenburg stated: 
 
4
 
“1.  Long-term psychological intervention to cope with and resolve anxiety 
issues from the incidents which have caused Mr. Noland injury.  Continued 
alcohol counseling and a rigorous routine program with an alcohol support group.  
 
“2.  Part-time volunteer work which is low-stress and which Mr. Noland is 
capable of handling. 
 
“3.  A re-evaluation when Mr. Noland’s psychiatric symptoms have abated, 
to determine his ability for rehabilitation and possible return to work and to 
determine a possible rehabilitation program if Mr. Noland is capable of returning 
to work.” 
 
On June 20, 1990, the rehabilitation division closed claimant’s file. 
 
The commission, on September 17, 1992, denied permanent total disability 
compensation, writing: 
 
“The reports of Drs. Brown, Nims, Flexman, Louis, Dillahunt and Farrell 
were reviewed and evaluated.  This order is based particularly upon the reports of 
Drs. Louis, Flexman, Farrell and Dillahunt, and the evidence in the file and the 
evidence adduced at the hearing. 
 
“The medical evidence found persuasive are the reports of Commission 
Specialists Drs. Louis, Flexman, Farrell and Dillahunt.  Dr. Louis, a Commission 
Neurologist, opines that the claimant demonstrates no impairment due to his 
allowed physical conditions.  Dr. Flexman, a Commission Neuropsychologist, 
estimates the claimant’s dysthymic disorder to represent a 20% permanent partial 
impairment and opines the claimant is capable of gainful employment.  Dr. Farrell, 
a Commission Psychologist, opines that the claimant’s psychological problems are 
primarily related to his alcohol problem.  The Combined Effects review of Dr. 
Dillahunt assesses the claimant’s overall impairment 51% and opines claimant 
retains the ability to engage in low stress light duty work.  Thus, the medical 
 
5
evidence indicates that claimant has a very minor physical impairment and a 
moderate psychological impairment which would allow him, at the minimum, to 
engage in low stress light duty work.  It is noted that the claimant is 47 years old, 
has a 12th grade education, and a work history as a police officer, supervisor, and 
laborer.  The Commission determines that the claimant likely retains some work 
skills transferable to light duty employment as a result of his experience as a 
police officer and supervisor.  Furthermore, the Commission finds the claimant’s 
relatively young age of 47 and 12th grade education suggest the claimant has the 
opportunity, motivation and qualifications necessary to successfully train and be 
employed in low stress light duty work.  Thus, finding the skills to presently 
engage in and/or be trained for sustained remunerative employment consistent 
with his work restrictions, the Commission denies his application for permanent 
total disability.” 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
him permanent total disability compensation.  The court of appeals found that the 
commission had failed to consider all the evidence before it, vacated the 
commission’s order, and returned the cause for further consideration and amended 
order. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
E.S. Gallon & Associates and Richard M. Malone, for appellee. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Toki M. Clark, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
6
 
Per Curiam.  The commission’s order identifies the evidence that it 
considered in reaching its decision.  Absent from this list is evidence from the 
commission’s rehabilitation division, which includes reports from Drs. 
Tecklenburg and Bensonhaver.  This omission implies that the commission did not 
examine this evidence.  State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 
327, 631 N.E.2d 1057.  The commission does not dispute this conclusion, arguing 
instead that its failure is excused by what it considers to be the nonprobative 
character of this evidence.  We disagree. 
 
Contrary to the commission’s representation, the rehabilitation evidence is 
very relevant to the present inquiry.  Both Drs. Tecklenburg and Bensonhaver state 
that claimant’s allowed psychiatric condition produces symptoms that negatively 
affect claimant’s ability to work or retrain — key factors in a permanent total 
disability determination.  The commission was, therefore, required to include this 
evidence in its deliberations and cannot attempt to excuse its failure to do so by 
belatedly citing perceived deficiencies that were never mentioned in its order. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, the 
commission’s order is vacated, and the cause is returned to it for further 
consideration and amended order consistent with our decision in Fultz. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.