Case Title: State ex rel. Stone Container Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-174

Docket Number: 19950599

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Stone Container Corporation, Appellant, v. Industrial 
Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Stone Container Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), _____ 
Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Workers’ compensation -- Industrial Commission abuses its 
discretion 
in 
reinstating 
temporary 
total 
disability 
compensation when its order is not supported by some 
evidence. 
 
(No. 95-599 -- Submitted May 21, 1997 -- Decided June 25, 1997.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 
94APD02-183. 
 
Appellee-claimant, Dale S. Koski, was injured in 1990 in the course 
of and arising from his employment with appellant Stone Container 
Corporation, a self-insured employer.  His claim was initially allowed for 
“contusion chest wall, muscle strains of back and neck and contusions of 
right leg and right ankle.” 
 
At some point, claimant began receiving temporary total disability 
compensation.  A handwritten February 13, 1992 C84 “Physician’s Report 
Supplemental” from attending physician Dr. Emmanuel Munoz certified 
 
2
claimant as temporarily and totally disabled through May 11, 1992.  Under 
the heading “Present complaints and condition(s),” Munoz listed “muscle 
strain, anterior L2, L3; disc herniation; chronic lumbar syndrome with 
radiculopathy (both knees and (R) ankle).”  His objective findings were 
noted as “bilaterally lumbar [illegible] straight leg raising 30%; bendover 
25%; backwards 25%[;] both lateral movements 25%.”  Subjective 
complaints were listed as “peripheral muscle tenderness; (R) ankle pain - 
pain both knees (R) ankle.” 
 
On March 24, 1992, claimant was examined by Dr. Christopher D. 
Cannell, who reported: 
 
“After a lengthy review of his history and records, I would have to 
say that Mr. Koski has reached maximum medical improvement for the neck 
and low back injury.  * * *  I will state that * * * the claimant’s condition 
has become permanent for the back and neck.  However, for the right ankle I 
do feel there was some tendinitis present and I feel this is treatable.”  
 
Two weeks later, Dr. Munoz responded affirmatively to the following 
inquiry from a Stone representative: 
 
3
 
“Enclosed please find a copy of an independent medical report from 
Dr. Cannell on the above referenced claimant.  Dr. Cannell indicates the 
claimant is at maximum medical improvement.  Are you in agreement with 
Dr. Cannell in that Mr. Koski has reached maximum medical 
improvement?” 
 
Dr. Munoz reiterated his opinion that claimant had reached maximum 
medical improvement on April 9, 1992.   
 
Based on Dr. Munoz’s response, Stone terminated claimant’s 
temporary total disability compensation.  Claimant, in turn, moved appellee 
Industrial Commission of Ohio for a  hearing on the issue of continued 
eligibility for temporary total disability compensation.  Claimant at 
approximately the same time secured a new handwritten C84 report from 
Dr. Munoz, which extended the period of temporary total disability to 
March 21, 1993.  Under “Present complaints and condition(s),” he listed 
“tendinitis of the Rt. ankle secondary to ankle injury; muscle strain, anterior 
L2, L3 disk herniation; chronic lumbar syndrome [and] radiculopathy.” 
Objective and subjective findings were reported as “bend over of trunk 
 
4
25%, backward 10%, lateral movements - 15% both; stinging sensation - 
lumbar spine area.”  
 
Dr. Munoz also observed on November 20, 1992 that claimant was 
“improving a lot in his movements and strength of ankle (R), back also 
improving.  Will continue same plan of treatment until complete recovery.”  
 
On June 3, 1993, a district hearing officer reinstated temporary total 
disability compensation as follows: 
 
“Medical evidence indicates that claimant has been temporarily 
totally disabled as a result of the allowed conditions in this claim since the 
date the self-insured employer terminated temporary total disability 
compensation (4/14/92).  The termination was based on the attending 
physician’s [sic] Dr. Munoz stating that he agreed with the employer’s 
physician, Dr. Connell [sic], that claimant had reached maximum medical 
improvement.  However Dr. Connell’s report indicated that claimant had not 
reached maximum medical improvement with respect to all allowed 
conditions.  Therefore, Dr. Munoz’s statement that he agreed with Dr. 
Connell on the maximum medical improvement issue is not a valid basis for 
the self-insured employer to terminate temporary total compensation * * *.” 
 
5
 
Dr. Munoz followed up with a typed July 27, 1993 C84 report that 
contained an exact recitation of claimant’s allowed conditions. 
 
A regional board of review affirmed the district hearing officer’s 
order without comment, and further appeal to the commission was refused.   
 
Stone filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
reinstating temporary total disability compensation.  The court of appeals 
denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Robert E. Tait, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Charles Zamora, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
 
Per Curiam.  We once again are asked to review the commission’s 
order for some evidence in support of its decision.  Upon review, we find 
that the commission’s order is not supported, and reverse the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
 
In State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 452, 
619 N.E.2d 1018, we held that the presence of disabling nonallowed 
 
6
medical conditions did not bar total disability compensation where the 
allowed conditions were also independently disabling.  This logic compels 
the conclusion that where some of the allowed conditions have reached 
maximum medical improvement, temporary total disability compensation 
may still be paid if the claimant can establish that other allowed conditions 
have not yet reached maximum medical improvement and prevent a return 
to the former position of employment. 
 
The parties do not dispute that claimant’s back and neck conditions 
have reached maximum medical improvement.  They cannot, as a result, 
serve as the basis for temporary total disability compensation.  R.C. 
4123.56.  Claimant must, therefore, establish that his remaining allowed 
conditions, either collectively or individually, are both temporary and 
prevent a resumption of claimant’s former duties.  This claimant cannot do.  
All of the evidence lists an assortment of back and neck conditions -- some 
allowed, others not allowed -- as contributing to claimant’s temporary total 
disability.  There is no evidence that indicates that claimant’s chest, leg, and 
ankle contusions or even a subsequently allowed depressive condition 
prevents a return to the former position of employment.  The commission, 
 
7
therefore, abused its discretion in awarding temporary total disability 
compensation. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.  The 
commission is ordered to vacate its order reinstating compensation for 
temporary total disability. 
 
 
Judgment reversed 
 
 
and writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. 
 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting.  I would affirm the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion.