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

Citation: 1994-Ohio-175

Docket Number: 19931965

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Hopkins, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission                   
of Ohio, Appellee.                                                               
[Cite as State ex rel. Hopkins v. Indus. Comm. (1994),    Ohio                   
St.3d    .]                                                                      
Mandamus to compel Industrial Commission to award permanent                      
     total disability compensation granted, when -- No evidence                  
     present which supports the commission's conclusion that                     
     claimant was capable of obtaining remunerative employment.                  
     (No. 93-1965  -- Submitted April 19, 1994 -- Decided                        
August 3, 1994.)                                                                 
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
92AP-1592.                                                                       
     Appellant, Johnny W. Hopkins, in 1975, 1982 and 1987,                       
suffered three industrial injuries, two of them major, while in                  
the course of and arising from his employment with C.L. & A.                     
Motor Delivery, which were allowed for: "[s]train to right                       
cervical musculature, severe strain to lumbosacral                               
musculature"; "[l]umbar contusion; lumbosacral strain,                           
hypertrophy L3-4, L4-5, spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 and                           
right-sided radiculopathy"; "[p]uncture wound right leg."                        
     In 1991, Hopkins moved appellee, Industrial Commission of                   
Ohio, for permanent total disability compensation.  Hopkins'                     
medical evidence consisted solely of Dr. Robert E. Slemmer's                     
affirmative responses to the following interrogatories:                          
     "1.  Mr. Hopkins claims that he has constant back pain                      
associated with his low back condition and claims that his                       
physical capacities are markedly reduced because of this                         
condition.  Specifically, he claims that his ability to stand                    
and walk is markedly reduced and also that his ability to lift                   
and carry objects is markedly reduced (to five to ten pounds                     
occasionally).  He claims as well that his ability to sit for                    
prolonged periods of time is, likewise, markedly reduced,                        
noting in this regard that he cannot sit for more than fifteen                   
to thirty minutes at a time before having to get up and move                     
about or lie down.                                                               
     "Given your treatment of Mr. Hopkins over the past few                      
years and given your knowledge of his condition with respect to                  
his low back, do you find Mr. Hopkins' claim to be consistent                    
and reasonable in the light of your own examination, findings                    
and observations?"                                                               
     "2. Mr. Hopkins has asked the Industrial Commission to                      
find that he is permanently and totally disabled from any and                    
all types of sustained work activity at this time as a result                    
of his severe low back condition.  In your opinion has Mr.                       
Hopkins been rendered permanently and totally disabled as a                      
result of his work related low back injuries?" (Emphasis sic.)                   
     Claimant submitted an extensive vocational report from Dr.                  
Kenneth Tecklenburg, Ph.D.  Dr. Tecklenburg declared claimant                    
unemployable, commenting:                                                        
     "The additional Stephenson [State ex rel. Stephenson v.                     
Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 31 OBR 369, 509 N.E.2d                   
946] factors adversely affecting Mr. Hopkins' ability to work                    
are his being an individual close to retirement age, his                         
marginal 3rd or 4th grade education, his 18 year employment                      
history solely in the motor transportation industry, his                         
intellectually functioning in the borderline range with reading                  
and spelling skills below the 3rd grade level and arithmetic                     
skills at the 3rd grade level, and his difficulty making a                       
vocational adjustment."                                                          
     Claimant was examined on the commission's behalf by Dr.                     
Arnold R. Penix and Dr. Steven S. Wunder.  Penix found that                      
claimant could not return to his old job but could engage in                     
sedentary work.  He assessed claimant's permanent partial                        
impairment at forty percent.  Dr. Wunder agreed that claimant                    
could not resume his old job.  He felt claimant could do light                   
to sedentary labor, and had a thirty-seven percent impairment.                   
     On October 15, 1992, the commission denied permanent total                  
disability compensation, based on "* * * the reports of Drs.                     
Wunder and Penix, and the evidence in the file and the evidence                  
adduced at the hearing.                                                          
     As a basis for its conclusion, the commission stated:                       
     "The claimant is a 60 year old male who attended the third                  
grade and who has a vocational history as truck and forklift                     
driver.  The medical evidence found persuasive by the                            
Commission relates that the allowed conditions in the claims                     
are not work prohibitive.  Specifically, the reports of Drs.                     
Wunder and Penix relate that the functional limitations imposed                  
by the allowed conditions would not preclude the claimant from                   
engaging in light duty work activity.  The commission further                    
finds that while the claimant's limited third grade education                    
and 60 years of age are impediments to work activity, they do                    
not preclude activities in light duty levels.  As such, the                      
Commission finds that when the medical evidence found                            
persuasive is coupled with a consideration of the claimant's                     
age, vocational history and age noted above, the claimant                        
presents himself as presently possessing the ability to adapt                    
and function at light levels of employment.  Therefore,                          
claimant is not found permanently and totally disabled."                         
     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 denied the requested writ.                   
     This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                    
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Kondritzer, Gold, Frank & Crowley Co., L.P.A., and Edward                   
C. Ahlers, for appellant.                                                        
     Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald,                   
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.                                        
                                                                                 
     Pfeifer, J.     Hopkins disputes the appellate court's                      
determination that the commission's order adequately explained                   
its result.                                                                      
                               I                                                 
                       Medical Challenge                                         
     Hopkins attempts to discredit the reports of Drs. Wunder                    
and Penix, so as to leave Dr. Slemmer's report as the only                       
competent medical evidence of record.  If successful, Dr.                        
Slemmer's assessment of a medical incapacity for work would                      
negate the need to consider nonmedical disability factors and                    
compel a permanent total disability award.  State ex rel.                        
Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Haygood (1991), 60                     
Ohio St.3d 38, 573 N.E.2d 60.                                                    
     It was the commission's prerogative to find the reports of                  
Drs. Wunder and Penix more persuasive.  State ex rel. Burley v.                  
Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508                      
N.E.2d 936.  This is particularly true when the three reports                    
are compared.  Dr. Slemmer does no more than scrawl a "yes" to                   
two very leading questions apparently prepared by claimant's                     
counsel.  Drs. Wunder and Penix, on the other hand,                              
comprehensively discuss claimant's past medical history and                      
subjective complaints, and make objective findings, diagnoses                    
and prognoses.  Hopkins' intimation that Dr. Slemmer's report                    
was unfairly discounted is thus unconvincing.  Dr. Wunder's                      
conclusion that Hopkins was capable of "lifting in sedentary to                  
light ranges" constitutes "some evidence" of light duty                          
capability.                                                                      
     Claimant attempts to discredit Dr. Wunder's report by                       
claiming that Dr. Wunder's conclusion was based on insufficient                  
findings.  Claimant, for example, asserts that Dr. Wunder's                      
failure to address claimant's prolonged ability to stand or                      
walk renders the doctor's opinion suspect.  Claimant's counsel,                  
however, is not a physician and absent anything other than his                   
speculation that something is amiss, Dr. Wunder's medical                        
expertise should be given deference.                                             
     For these reasons, we reject claimant's objections to the                   
medical evidence.                                                                
                               II                                                
                      Nonmedical Challenge                                       
     In State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31                      
Ohio St.3d 167, 31 OBR 369, 509 N.E.2d 946, this court                           
emphasized the need for the Industrial Commission to look                        
beyond a claimant's medical record:                                              
     "In determining permanent total disability, the Industrial                  
Commission must evaluate the evidence concerning the degree to                   
which the claimant's ability to work has been impaired.  The                     
ultimate consideration is whether the claimant is '"unfit for                    
sustained remunerative employment."' (Emphasis deleted.) State,                  
ex rel. Paragon, v. Indus. Comm. (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 72, 5 OBR                   
127, 448 N.E.2d 1372.  Any conclusion with regard to permanent                   
total disability must address the claimant's ability to work.                    
State, ex rel. Hutt, v. Frick-Gallagher Mfg. Co. (1984) 11 Ohio                  
St.3d 184, 11 OBR 497, 464 N.E.2d 1005.                                          
     "In making a determination of the degree to which the                       
claimant's ability to work has been impaired, and to answer the                  
query as to whether the claimant is unfit to work at any                         
sustained remunerative employment, the commission must look to                   
a broad number of pertinent factors.  It must review all the                     
evidence in the record including the doctors' reports and                        
opinions.  The commission must also review any evidence                          
relative to the claimant's age, education, work record,                          
psychological or psychiatric factors if present, and that of a                   
sociological nature." Id. at 170, 31 OBR at 372, 509 N.E.2d at                   
949-950.                                                                         
     These nonmedical factors came to be known as "Stephenson"                   
factors.                                                                         
     In the present case, the commission, after mentioning                       
Stephenson factors such as Hopkins' age, education, work                         
history and impairment, concluded that the claimant was capable                  
of obtaining remunerative employment and was, thus, not                          
permanently and totally disabled.                                                
     When reviewing a commission's denial of permanent total                     
disability compensation, this court has looked to see if there                   
is "some evidence" supporting the commission's decision.  State                  
ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987) 31 Ohio St.3d 18,                    
31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936.                                                       
     No evidence supports the commission's conclusion that, in                   
light of the Stephenson factors, Hopkins is likely to return to                  
the job market.  Quite to the contrary, there is uncontradicted                  
testimony of a vocational expert who, based on Stephenson                        
factors, concluded that Hopkins was unemployable.  Because                       
there was no evidence presented which supports the commission's                  
conclusion that Hopkins was capable of obtaining remunerative                    
employment, the commission was obligated to find Hopkins                         
permanently and totally disabled.                                                
     Pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio                       
St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666, the judgment of the court of appeals                  
is reversed and a writ of mandamus is issued to compel the                       
Industrial Commission to award permanent total disability                        
compensation.                                                                    
                                 Judgment reversed                               
                                 and writ granted.                               
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ.,                       
concur.                                                                          
     Wright, J., concurs separately.                                             
     Moyer, C.J., concurs in judgment only.                                      
     Wright, J., concurring.    I concur in the judgment                         
reached by the majority because I believe there was an abuse of                  
discretion by the Industrial Commission with respect to the                      
Stephenson factors.  I continue to believe, however, that State                  
ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666,                   
was poorly reasoned and should not be used as a basis for                        
reaching a decision in any cases except those in which the                       
commission has abused its discretion.