Case Title: State ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

Citation: 2016-Ohio-7741

Docket Number: 2015-1347

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7741.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-7741 
THE STATE EX REL. MANPOWER OF DAYTON, INC., APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7741.] 
Workers’ compensation—Permanent total disability—Commission’s decision 
supported by some evidence in record, specifically states evidence relied 
upon, and explains reasoning—Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of 
mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1347—Submitted August 30, 2016—Decided November 16, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 14AP-376, 2015-Ohio-2650. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Manpower of Dayton, Inc. (“Manpower”), appeals the 
judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying its request for a writ of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
mandamus that would compel appellee Industrial Commission to vacate its award 
of permanent-total-disability compensation to appellee Inge Fox. 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals concluded that the reports of Kenneth J. Manges, 
Ph.D., James T. Lutz, M.D., and Thomas W. Heitkemper, Ph.D., constituted some 
evidence supporting the commission’s order awarding compensation and that the 
order complied with the requirements of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio 
St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245 (1991), syllabus, to “specifically state what evidence 
has been relied upon, and briefly explain the reasoning for [the commission’s] 
decision.” 
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
{¶ 4} In 2006, Fox injured her left arm and hand in the course and scope of 
her employment with Manpower.  Her workers’ compensation claim was allowed 
for various medical and psychological conditions.  In 2013, Fox applied for 
permanent-total-disability compensation.  In support of her application, she 
submitted two reports from Dr. Manges, a psychologist and a vocational expert, 
both dated July 10, 2012. 
{¶ 5} Drs. Lutz and Heitkemper examined Fox on behalf of the 
commission.  Both determined that Fox had reached maximum medical 
improvement and was incapable of engaging in “sustained remunerative 
employment.” 
{¶ 6} The commission granted Fox’s application based on the reports of 
Drs. Manges, Lutz, and Heitkemper.  The order stated that because Fox’s inability 
to work was based solely on the medical impairment caused by her allowed 
conditions, it was not necessary to discuss her nonmedical disability factors, such 
as age, education, skills, and work record, see State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. 
Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 172-173, 509 N.E.2d 946 (1987). 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 7} Manpower filed a complaint in mandamus in the Tenth District Court 
of Appeals, claiming that the commission abused its discretion by entering an order 
not supported by the evidence in the record.  The court of appeals concluded that 
the commission did not abuse its discretion and denied Manpower’s request for a 
writ. 
{¶ 8} This matter is before this court on Manpower’s appeal as of right. 
{¶ 9} To be entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, Manpower 
must establish a clear legal right to the relief requested, a clear legal duty on the 
part of the commission to provide the relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 
117 Ohio St.3d 480, 2008-Ohio-1593, 884 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 10} Manpower argues that the court of appeals erred in its analysis of the 
sufficiency and reliability of the evidence that the commission relied upon.  In 
particular, Manpower contends that the impairment report of Dr. Manges focused 
on nonmedical factors to support his opinion that Fox was disabled.  Manpower 
also argues that Dr. Lutz’s report was equivocal regarding Fox’s physical 
capabilities and that Dr. Heitkemper’s report did not constitute evidence that 
supported the commission’s decision.  Finally, Manpower contends that the 
commission’s order failed to specifically state the evidence relied upon and to 
briefly explain its reasoning, in violation of Noll, 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 
245. 
{¶ 11} This court must determine whether there is some evidence in the 
record to support the commission’s decision.  State ex rel. Avalon Precision Casting 
Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 237, 2006-Ohio-2287, 846 N.E.2d 1245, ¶ 9.  
Questions regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are within the 
commission’s discretion.  State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165, 
169, 429 N.E.2d 433 (1981).  It is not the role of a reviewing court to assess the 
credibility of the evidence.  State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
78 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 677 N.E.2d 338 (1997).  So long as the commission’s order 
is supported by some evidence, there is no abuse of discretion and a court must 
uphold the decision.  State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373, 
376, 658 N.E.2d 1055 (1996). 
{¶ 12} We agree with the court of appeals that the evidence in the record 
supported the commission’s decision to award permanent-total-disability 
compensation based solely on Fox’s allowed conditions.  The court of appeals 
correctly determined that Dr. Manges rendered an opinion, without consideration 
of nonmedical factors, that Fox was totally disabled as a direct result of her 
impairments from her industrial injury based on her psychological conditions.  See 
2015-Ohio-2650, ¶ 52-53. 
{¶ 13} We also agree with the appellate court’s determination that Dr. 
Lutz’s description of Fox’s activities of daily living did not contradict his 
conclusion that she was unable to work.  See id. at ¶ 67-71.  Dr. Lutz acknowledged 
that Fox was capable of performing some light housecleaning, cooking, and 
laundry, but he also noted that she had undergone three surgical procedures and 
described constant pain with frequent episodes of severe flareups that rendered her 
functionless. 
{¶ 14} Manpower’s argument challenging the evidentiary value of Dr. 
Heitkemper’s report also lacks merit.  Dr. Heitkemper’s use of the word “medical” 
when rendering his opinion within a reasonable degree of “medical/psychological 
probability” did not invalidate his opinion.  Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(C)(1) states 
that a psychologist may provide “medical” evidence in support of an application 
for permanent-total-disability compensation. 
{¶ 15} Finally, the commission’s order granting permanent-total-disability 
compensation specifically set forth the medical reports and evidence relied upon 
and explained the reasoning for the decision in compliance with Noll, 57 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
203, 567 N.E.2d 245, at syllabus.  Manpower failed to demonstrate that it was 
entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus. 
{¶ 16} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A., David C. Korte, Michelle D. Bach, and Joshua 
R. Lounsbury, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Patsy A. Thomas, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
Hochman & Plunkett Co., L.P.A., and Gary D. Plunkett, for appellee Inge 
Fox. 
_________________