Case Title: State ex rel. Justice v. Hurley

Citation: 1997-Ohio-399

Docket Number: 19961828

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[THE STATE EX REL.] JUSTICE, APPELLANT, v. HURLEY; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Justice v. Hurley (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 209.] 
Workers’ compensation — Mandamus directing Industrial Commission to vacate 
its order denying relator permanent total disability compensation denied, 
when. 
(No. 96-1828 — Submitted January 7, 1997 — Decided July 16, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95ADP07-918. 
__________________ 
 
 
Eunice Justice, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by the court of appeals in its 
opinion rendered on June 20, 1996, which we adopt and attach as an appendix to 
this entry. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating. 
APPENDIX 
 
JOHN C. YOUNG, Judge. 
 
Relator, Eunice Justice, has filed this original action requesting that this 
court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of 
Ohio (“commission”) to vacate its order denying relator permanent total disability 
 
2
compensation, and to award relator such compensation in accordance with the 
evidence of record. 
 
This matter was referred to a court-appointed magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 
53(C) and Section 13, Loc.R. 11 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  The 
magistrate has issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
and has recommended that this court deny relator’s request for a writ of 
mandamus.  Relator has filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. 
 
Upon an examination of the decision of the magistrate, an independent 
review of the file, and consideration of relator’s objections, this court finds that 
the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and has applied the 
salient law to them.  Accordingly, this court agrees with the magistrate’s decision, 
including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, and relator’s 
objections are overruled. 
 
The record in the present case contains both medical and psychological 
reports which support the commission’s finding that relator is not entitled to 
permanent and total disability compensation.  Dr. Vaughan indicated that 
claimant’s allowed orthopedic conditions would not prevent her from returning to 
her former position of employment within certain guidelines.  Dr. Bartley found 
that claimant exaggerated her responses to the testing and that his physical 
findings indicated that claimant could currently work at her previous job as a store 
manager.  Dr. Altman found that claimant would not be fit for any type of 
employment, but this finding was not due to the allowed psychiatric conditions in 
the claim. 
 
Given the commission’s finding that relator was medically able to return to 
her former position of employment, it was unnecessary for the commission to 
evaluate the nonmedical factors because any inability to work is not causally 
 
3
related to the allowed conditions.  State ex rel. Speelman v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 
73 Ohio App.3d 757, 762, 598 N.E.2d 192, 195.  The commission discussed these 
factors anyway, and the order indicates that the claimant is at the advanced age of 
seventy, but that her extensive educational background would be a valuable asset 
in a successful retraining program and that her varied work history shows that she 
has significant transferable sedentary work skills.  The commission concluded by 
finding that relator was not permanently removed from all forms of sustained 
remunerative employment, even of a sedentary nature, and that she was not 
entitled to permanent total disability. 
 
In her objections, relator raises many of the same issues which she raised in 
her original petition and which were discussed by the magistrate.  Relator urges 
this court to look at the combined-effects review prepared by Dr. Holbrook as 
evidence that the commission should have found that she was permanently and 
totally disabled.  Dr. Holbrook concluded that relator had a whole person 
impairment of sixty percent; however, relator’s argument ignores the fact that, 
although the report of Dr. Holbrook was reviewed and evaluated by the 
commission, the commission did not base its order on that report nor was the 
commission required to do so.  Our inquiry on review is whether or not the record 
contains some evidence to support the commission’s finding and not whether or 
not all of the evidence in the record supports the commission’s findings. 
 
Based on the foregoing, this court adopts the decision of the magistrate as 
its own, and the objections raised by relator are overruled.  This court finds that 
relator has not demonstrated a clear legal right to permanent total disability 
compensation or a clear legal right to a further explanation by the commission, as 
the evidence in this case and the reasoning given for the decision meet all the 
 
4
requirements of applicable law.  Therefore, relator’s request for a writ of 
mandamus is denied. 
Objections overruled and 
writ of mandamus denied. 
 
PETREE, P.J., and CLOSE, J., concur.