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

Citation: 1998-Ohio-66

Docket Number: 19971531

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. HUMPHREY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Humphrey v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 97-1531 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided October 14, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD09-1210. 
__________________ 
 
Law Offices of Larry Hotchkiss and Scott A. Bravi, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion 
of the court of appeals. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting.  I would reverse the judgment of the 
court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission to consider the 
report of bureau vocational specialist Rod Metcalf.  The commission’s order lists 
reports reviewed and evaluated, but omits mention of the Metcalf report.  I 
disagree with the court of appeals’ finding that the commission satisfied the 
requirement that it indicate consideration of the Metcalf report because another 
vocational report makes several references to it.  It is the commission’s duty to 
evaluate all the evidence, and it may not delegate that responsibility.  See State ex 
rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 572, 577, 679 N.E.2d 295, 299; 
State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057. 
 
2
 
MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.