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

Citation: 2001-Ohio-35

Docket Number: 19991933

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Cunningham v. Indus. Comm., 91 Ohio St.3d 261, 2001-
Ohio-35.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CUNNINGHAM, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cunningham v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 261.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s denial of application for 
permanent total disability compensation not an abuse of discretion when 
supported by “some evidence” — Mandamus sought to compel 
commission to vacate order and to enter an order granting compensation 
— Denial of writ by court of appeals affirmed. 
(No. 99-1933 — Submitted March 14, 2001 — Decided April 11, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-1290. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Howard Cunningham, appellant, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 
Industrial Commission of Ohio, appellee, to vacate its order denying his 
application for permanent total disability compensation (“PTD”) and to enter an 
order granting this compensation.  The Court of Appeals for Franklin County 
denied the writ, finding that the commission’s order was supported by some 
evidence and, therefore, not an abuse of discretion.  On Cunningham’s appeal as 
of right, we affirm. 
 
Cunningham injured his back in 1982 while working as a pumper for a 
petroleum company.  After that, Cunningham stopped working.  He was only 
fifty-one years old at the time, he was physically able to perform sedentary tasks, 
and despite having only an eighth grade education, he had accumulated a variety 
of work experiences, including operating his own service station. 
 
In 1995, almost twelve years later, Cunningham applied for PTD, alleging 
that he was unable to perform any type of sustained remunerative employment.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
The commission denied him PTD because he had made no effort to vocationally 
rehabilitate himself during the many years that he did not work after his industrial 
injury.  Cunningham does not dispute that he did not try to improve his potential 
for reemployment; he argues only that the commission abused its discretion in 
expecting him to make the effort before his condition was diagnosed as 
permanent. 
 
We disagree.  PTD is a compensation “of last resort, to be awarded only 
when all reasonable avenues of accomplishing a return to sustained remunerative 
employment have failed.”  State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio 
St.3d 250, 253, 685 N.E.2d 774, 777.  In Wilson, as here, the claimant’s age, 
relatively low medical impairment, capacity to learn, and varied work experience 
made him a prime candidate for rehabilitation and reentry into the workforce.  But 
also like Cunningham, that claimant did nothing to rehabilitate himself 
vocationally for many years and then applied for PTD, representing that he was 
unemployable.  We found no abuse of discretion in the commission’s denial of 
PTD for that claimant, explaining: 
 
“[I]t is not unreasonable to expect a claimant to participate in return-to-
work efforts to the best of his or her abilities or to take the initiative to improve 
reemployment potential.  While extenuating circumstances can excuse a 
claimant’s nonparticipation in reeducation or retraining efforts, claimants should 
no longer assume that a participatory role, or lack thereof, will go unscrutinized.”  
Wilson, 80 Ohio St.3d at 253-254, 685 N.E.2d at 777. 
 
The court of appeals found no extenuating circumstances to excuse 
Cunningham’s failure even to attempt vocational rehabilitation, and we concur.  
Accordingly, the judgment to deny Cunningham a writ of mandamus is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Law Office of Thomas Tootle and Thomas Tootle, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________