Case Title: State ex rel. Malinowski v. Hordis Bros., Inc.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-383

Docket Number: 19950451

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. MALINOWSKI, APPELLEE, V. HORDIS BROTHERS, INC.; 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Malinowski v. Hordis Bros., Inc. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 342.] 
Workers’ compensation — Denial of application for permanent total disability 
compensation by Industrial Commission an abuse of discretion when not 
supported by “some evidence” — Report of commission specialist is 
disqualified from evidentiary consideration when it is susceptible of 
different interpretations. 
(No. 95-451 — Submitted May 20, 1997 — Decided August 6, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD02-244. 
 
Appellee-claimant, Ronnie L. Malinowski, injured his low back on June 20, 
1989 in the course of and arising from his employment with Hordis Brothers, Inc.  
Other than a brief period shortly after the injury, claimant has been unable to work 
since.  Two surgeries were unsuccessful in alleviating claimant’s symptoms. 
 
In June 1992, claimant filed a request with appellant, Industrial Commission 
of Ohio, for further treatment by Dr. W. David Leak.  For reasons unknown, the 
commission did not consider that request for over a year.  In the meantime, 
claimant moved for permanent total disability compensation.  He accompanied his 
request with Dr. Leak’s April 29, 1993 letter: 
 
“In reference to your inquiry concerning Mr. Malinowski;  
 
“He is permanently and totally disabled.  He has a well-documented 
industrial injury.  He has had appropriate surgical interventions for same and has 
not been allowed to have reasonable medical/surgical interventions to suppress 
symptoms.  The gentleman has well-documented evidence, via EMG, of 
progression of the aforementioned injury and symptoms.  Despite these objective 
findings that correlate well with his clinical complaint, the gentleman has still 
 
2
been made to continue to suffer unnecessarily when medical technology and know 
how are available to possibly abate this suffering.  Thus, due to the progression of 
symptoms associated with the original industrial injury, the gentleman is unlikely 
to recover and is in fact totally and permanently disabled.” 
 
Claimant was examined by commission specialists Drs. Paul J. Matrka and 
John Q. Brown.  Dr. Matrka concluded: 
 
“After reviewing this patient’s history, [and] treatment program, it is my 
opinion that this patient is not capable of resuming occupational activities that he 
was performing at the time of injury.  I would agree with Dr. Leak that a 
rehabilitation program should be recommended and also agree that the patient 
does have permanency to the problem.  Should the patient successfully go through 
the rehab program, along with the further treatment recommended by Dr. Leak, it 
would be my impression that the patient could be retrained for a more sedentary 
occupation, however, there certainly is permanency to his impairments.  The 
recommended treatment program, I would suggest [is] continuing with the 
program proposed by Dr. Leak which is being directed toward pain control, relief 
of his symptoms and resolution of his chronic lumbar radiculitis.” 
 
Dr. Brown wrote: 
 
“* * * This man has had two surgical procedures on his back without help.  
It is my opinion he is not able to return to his former position of employment.  
This is permanent.  He has reached maximum medical recovery.  I would consider 
his impairment to be of moderate degree, 45%.  There would be some forms of 
employment he might be able to engage in  using his hands and arms.  He would 
be on a limit of lifting [up to] 10 lbs. and should not do prolonged standing or 
bending.” 
 
3
 
On September 7, 1993, a commission district hearing officer denied 
claimant’s request for treatment by Dr. Leak.  That same day, a commission staff 
hearing officer denied permanent total disability compensation, writing: 
 
“The Commission concludes that the claimant is not permanently and totally 
disabled based on the reports of Paul J. Matrka, M.D., and Dr. John Q. Brown.  On 
March 2, 1992, Paul J. Matrka, M.D., Orthopedic Consultant for the BWC, stated 
that the claimant could perform a more sedentary occupation and that he should go 
into a rehab program to permit him to obtain additional training for this.  Further, 
on January 21, 1993, J.Q. Brown, M.D., Commission Orthopedist, stated that there 
would be several forms of employment that the claimant could engage in using his 
hands and arms and he could lift up to 10 pounds and that he has no restrictions on 
sitting. 
 
“It is further noted that the claimant is presently 43 years of age, (10-20-49).  
Claimant further has a 9th grade education but did go on to obtain a G.E.D.  
Claimant states he can read, write and do basic math which would be indicative 
that the claimant has ability to secure additional training for levels of employment 
consistent with his abilities as outlined by Drs. Brown and Matrka.  It is further 
found that the claimant had prior experience in the U.S. Army in a sedentary and 
light job as a motor pool clerk which would give him the skills to seek and 
maintain some reduced level of employment.  Considering the vocational factors 
including the claimant’s age, his academic ability and prior work experiences in 
sedentary and light work, and his residual functional physical capacities, it is 
concluded that the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled.  
 
“The reports of Drs. Matrka, Brown and Leak were reviewed and evaluated.  
This order is based particularly upon the reports of Drs. Matrka and Brown.” 
 
4
 
Claimant appealed the order denying further treatment and sought 
reconsideration of the denial of permanent total disability compensation.  
Reconsideration was denied, but claimant prevailed in his appeal of the other order 
and treatment was authorized.  
 
Claimant then filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
permanent total disability compensation.  The court of appeals vacated the 
commission’s order and returned the cause to the commission for further 
consideration and amended order. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
___________________ 
 
Daniel D. Connor Co., L.P.A., Daniel D. Connor and Kenneth S. 
Hafenstein, for appellee. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. 
___________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The commission determined that claimant was physically 
capable of sedentary work.  It based its conclusion on reports from Drs. Matrka 
and Brown.  The court of appeals, however, ruled that those reports were not 
“some evidence” supporting a sedentary-work capability.  We affirm that 
judgment. 
 
Dr. Matrka opined that claimant could do sedentary work if (1) he 
successfully completed rehabilitation and (2) he underwent the treatment program 
recommended by Dr. Leak.  Unfortunately, the commission’s unexplained delay in 
responding to claimant’s treatment authorization request delayed claimant’s 
participation in either rehabilitation or Dr. Leak’s treatment regimen.  By now, 
 
5
claimant may have completed both programs, but the record is silent in this regard.  
Thus, in the absence of evidence that either condition precedent has been met, 
reliance on Dr. Matrka’s report as “some evidence” supporting claimant’s ability 
to perform sedentary tasks is premature. 
 
Dr. Brown’s report is also problematic.  At issue is the following passage: 
 
“This man has had two surgical procedures on his back without help.  It is 
my opinion he is not able to return to his former position of employment.  This is 
permanent.  He has reached maximum medical recovery.  I would consider his 
impairment to be of moderate degree, 45%. There would be some forms of 
employment he might be able to engage in using his hands and arms.  He would be 
on a limit of lifting 10 lbs. and should not do prolonged standing or bending.”  
(Emphasis added.) 
 
The court of appeals concluded that Dr. Brown’s use of the word “might” 
denoted uncertainty, which disqualified the report as too equivocal, citing State ex 
rel. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 263, 
638 N.E.2d 565.1  It is difficult to tell whether Dr. Brown is expressing uncertainty 
as to claimant’s ability to even use his hands and arms productively or whether he 
believes that claimant can use his arms and hands, but questions the existence of 
jobs that can accommodate him.  If Dr. Brown is stating the former, it is difficult 
to read his report as “some evidence” supporting the denial of permanent total 
disability compensation since claimant’s ability to use his hands and arms was a 
prominent factor in the commission’s decision.  If, on the other hand, Dr. Brown is 
making a definitive statement as to claimant’s physical abilities accompanied by 
gratuitous speculation as to job availability, his report could be “some evidence” 
supporting the commission’s order.  The availability of different interpretations, in 
this case, disqualifies the report from evidentiary consideration. 
 
6
 
The court of appeals determined that relief pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v  
Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666, would not be proper in this 
situation.  We agree and find it more appropriate to return the cause to the 
commission for further consideration.  As noted earlier, claimant may have by now 
completed rehabilitation and Dr. Leak’s treatment program.  The success or failure 
of claimant’s participation will have a significant effect on his eligibility for 
permanent total disability compensation, since Dr. Matrka stated that successful 
completion of both programs would render claimant employable.  It must also be 
remembered that claimant was only age forty-three when permanent total 
disability compensation was denied and that, as claimant states, while drawing 
temporary total disability compensation earlier, he secured his GED.  This 
suggests that claimant is a motivated individual who, if successfully treated by Dr. 
Leak, may have reemployment potential.   
 
For these reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
The present case, technically, does not fit the facts of Owens-Corning 
Fiberglas or the two cases that preceded it — State ex rel. Jennings v. Indus. 
Comm. (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 101, 1 OBR 135, 438 N.E.2d 420, and State ex rel. 
Paragon v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 72, 5 OBR 127, 448 N.E.2d 1372 
— since, rather than dealing with two distinct yet inconsistent physician 
statements as in the cited cases, this action involves one statement that can be read 
two ways.