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

Citation: 1994-Ohio-102

Docket Number: 19931497

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Madison, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission                   
of Ohio, Appellee.                                                               
[Cite as State ex rel. Madison v. Indus. Comm. (1994),                           
Ohio St.3d      .]                                                               
Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission's order granting                  
     or denying benefits to a claimant must specifically state                   
     what portion of the evidence has been relied upon, and                      
     briefly explain the reasoning for its decision.                             
     (No. 93-1497 -- Submitted March 22, 1994 -- Decided May                     
18, 1994.)                                                                       
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
92AP-1040.                                                                       
     Appellant-claimant, Jack J. Madison, was a school teacher                   
for many years.  Low pay and student discipline problems                         
prompted his departure from the profession in 1972.  Claimant                    
then began working in Davro Corporation's plating plant.                         
     Claimant contracted "asthmatic bronchitis" in 1986 in the                   
course of and arising from his employment, and his workers'                      
compensation claim was allowed for that condition.  In 1990,                     
claimant applied to appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio,                     
for permanent total disability compensation.                                     
     The medical evidence submitted to the commission uniformly                  
agreed that claimant could not return to his former position of                  
employment as a plater.  Drs. Lawrence Martin and Anthony                        
DiMarco felt that claimant could do other work provided he was                   
in a fume-free environment.  Attending physician Joseph A.                       
Sopko felt that claimant was permanently and totally "disabled."                 
     Claimant also submitted a vocational report from William                    
L. Fink, who wrote:                                                              
     "Mr. Madison complains of shortness of breath with minimal                  
exertion.  He certainly cannot return to work in machinery                       
repair as this work is very heavy work and is not performed in                   
a clean environment.  While school teaching of academic                          
subjects is considered light work, one must also consider the                    
fact that Mr. Madison's age, plus the fact that it is an                         
emotionally demanding job, especially with the discipline                        
problems that occur in our public schools.  Mr. Madison does                     
not have an advanced degree or any specialized credentials that                  
would qualify him to work in a prestigious prepschool, junior                    
college or college.  Even consideration of Mr. Madison's                         
returning to the field of education is a moot point as he                        
complains that speaking for long periods of time causes                          
shortness of breath.                                                             
     "* * *                                                                      
     "If Mr. Madison were a much younger man he could enter                      
graduate school in mathematics or science and he could                           
eventually work in a climate controlled and pollution free                       
laboratory.  However, he is of advanced age, and in accordance                   
with his treating physician's letter (attached) Mr. Madison has                  
a chronic complaint that simply is not going to go away, nor is                  
Mr. Madison going to get any younger.                                            
     "Thus, when age is considered, plus the greater part of                     
his past relevant work history and his physical complaints,                      
there are no areas of sustained remunerative employment I, as a                  
vocational rehabilitation consultant, can recommend.  It is my                   
opinion this man is permanently and totally removed from                         
sustained remunerative activity from a vocational point of                       
view."                                                                           
     The commission denied permanent total disability                            
compensation, stating:                                                           
     "The reports of Drs. Sopko, DiMarco and Martin and                          
vocational report of Mr. Fink were reviewed and evaluated.                       
This order is based particularly upon the reports of Drs.                        
DiMarco and Martin, a consideration of the claimant's age,                       
education, work history * * *.                                                   
     "Claimant is age sixty-nine with a college degree in                        
teaching and a work history of heavy machinery repair (twenty                    
years in the Navy), school teacher and as a zinc, chrome and                     
nickel plater (sixteen years).  It is noted that both Dr.                        
DiMarco and Dr. Martin found a permanent partial impairment of                   
twenty percent  and that on a medical basis, claimant would be                   
capable of employment in which he was not exposed to dust and                    
fumes.  In light of these factors, it is found that claimant is                  
not permanently and totally disabled due to the condition                        
allowed in this claim."                                                          
     Claimant 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 found a violation of State                   
ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 203, 567                     
N.E.2d 245, because the commission's order failed to adequately                  
explain its reasoning.  The court vacated the order and                          
returned the cause to the commission for further consideration                   
and an amended order.                                                            
     This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                    
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy                    
and Marc J. Jaffy; and Frank Gallucci, for appellant.                            
     Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Michael P. O'Grady and                     
Richard A. Hernandez, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.                 
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  Claimant in effect seeks a writ of mandamus                    
to compel the commission to award permanent total disability                     
compensation consistent with our decision in State ex rel. Gay                   
v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St. 3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.  We find                     
such relief to be inappropriate in this case and affirm the                      
judgment of the court below.                                                     
     The present order violates Noll, supra, because it does                     
not explain how the vocationally contradictory factors it cites                  
enable claimant to be capable of sustained remunerative                          
employment.  While claimant's education and work history are                     
vocationally favorable, his age is not.                                          
     The existence of conflicting factors renders Gay's                          
application here inappropriate.  Because claimant has                            
nonmedical factors that are both vocationally favorable and                      
unfavorable, a decision to either grant or deny benefits --                      
with proper explanation - - could be evidentially defensible.                    
A return of the cause for further consideration and an amended                   
order is not, under these circumstances, the futile exercise                     
that Gay seeks to prevent.                                                       
     Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is                        
affirmed.                                                                        
                                    Judgment affirmed.                           
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick and                    
Pfeifer, JJ., concur.                                                            
     F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse on authority                   
of State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626                      
N.E.2d 666.