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

Citation: 2006-Ohio-5483

Docket Number: 20051770

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Crocker v. Indus. Comm., 111 Ohio St.3d 202, 2006-Ohio-5483.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CROCKER, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Crocker v. Indus. Comm.,  
111 Ohio St.3d 202, 2006-Ohio-5483.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission — Abuse of discretion — 
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2005-1770 — Submitted July 18, 2006 — Decided November 8, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 04AP-820, 2005-Ohio-4390. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this workers’ compensation case, the neurologist treating the 
claimant, Paul Crocker, stated that the claimant’s allowed conditions, bilateral 
carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral reflex sympathy dystrophy, would improve.  
The Industrial Commission rejected that opinion, finding that the claimant had 
attained maximum medical improvement.  Claimant then sought scheduled loss 
compensation for those conditions.  In a new report, the neurologist reiterated his 
belief that the claimant’s condition would improve.  This time, the commission 
accepted that opinion and denied scheduled loss compensation as premature 
because claimant’s loss was not permanent.  We are asked to determine whether 
the commission abused its discretion in accepting the opinion concerning the 
permanency of the claimant’s condition after rejecting it earlier.  We hold that it 
did. 
{¶ 2} Paul Crocker was injured on February 2, 1999.  After Crocker’s 
workers’ compensation claim was allowed, temporary total disability 
compensation followed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} On January 15, 2003, Crocker was examined by Dr. Gregory A. 
Ornella, on behalf of Crocker’s employer, appellant Sauder Woodworking 
Company.  Ornella opined that Crocker had reached maximum medical 
improvement. 
{¶ 4} On February 17, 2003, Crocker’s attending physician, clinical 
neurologist, Dr. Allan G. Clague, M.D., denied that his patient had reached 
maximum medical improvement and stressed that he would “certainly expect 
significant improvement to occur over time.”  He emphatically repeated that 
opinion on February 28, 2003. 
{¶ 5} On April 25, 2003, appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio 
denied further temporary total disability compensation, based on Dr. Ornella’s 
conclusion that Crocker’s condition was permanent.  Later, Crocker sought 
scheduled loss compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B), which covers permanent 
partial disability, for the loss of use of various fingers.  On June 10, 2003, in 
correspondence between Dr. Clague and Sauder Woodworking’s counsel, Dr. 
Clague again noted, “[W]ith continued treatment of his underlying neurological 
disorder * * * we can rightfully expect improvement in his overall neurological 
status including that of the fingers of his hands.” 
{¶ 6} Crocker’s loss-of-use motion was heard by a commission deputy 
on November 5, 2003.  He denied Crocker’s motion based on Dr. Clague’s June 
10, 2003 report, which had been written almost two months after the 
commission’s order terminating temporary total disability compensation.  Citing 
Dr. Clague’s opinion that further improvement was expected, the deputy 
concluded that Crocker’s condition was not permanent, and, hence, loss-of-use 
compensation was premature. 
{¶ 7} Crocker filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, seeking to vacate the commission’s November order as an abuse 
of discretion.  The court of appeals agreed that the commission had abused its 
January Term, 2006 
3 
discretion and ordered a limited writ that ordered the commission to further 
consider an amended order.  The court held that under State ex rel. Zamora v. 
Indus. Comm. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 17, 543 N.E.2d 87, the commission could not 
reject Dr. Clague’s opinion that Crocker’s condition was not permanent by 
denying disability compensation, and then revive and rely upon that same opinion 
seven months later in denying Crocker’s motion for scheduled loss compensation. 
{¶ 8} This cause is now before this court on appeal as of right. 
{¶ 9} The commission had rejected on April 23, 2003, Dr. Clague’s 
opinion that Crocker’s condition could improve, when it found maximum medical 
improvement and denied temporary total disability compensation.  The 
commission then relied on Dr. Clague’s June 10, 2003 report, which had 
expressed the same opinion in denying Crocker’s loss-of-use motion.  The court 
of appeals held that, under Zamora, that reliance was an abuse of discretion.  
Sauder Woodworking and the commission maintain that Zamora does not apply 
because the commission had never before relied on the June 10, 2003 report.  
They further contend that applying Zamora here will have far-reaching 
evidentiary consequences. 
{¶ 10} In Zamora, a physically injured claimant moved simultaneously 
for an additional psychiatric allowance and permanent total disability based in 
part on the claimant’s depression.  Dennis Kogut, Ph.D., and Joseph Mann, M.D., 
agreed that the claimant suffered from moderate depression, but Dr. Kogut 
thought that the depression predated the injury. 
{¶ 11} The commission granted the additional allowance and, in so doing, 
in effect rejected Dr. Kogut’s opinion.  It later denied permanent total disability 
based in part on Dr. Kogut’s report.  Claimant challenged that decision and 
prevailed judicially, as “it would be inconsistent to permit the commission to 
reject the Kogut report at one level, for whatever reason, and rely on it at 
another.”  Zamora, 45 Ohio St.3d at 19, 543 N.E.2d 87. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} In the case at bar, Dr. Clague, on February 17, 2003, and February 
28, 2003, wrote that Crocker had not reached maximum improvement, that his 
condition was not permanent, and that he expected Crocker’s condition to 
improve with continued treatment.  The commission inherently rejected those 
reports when, on April 25, 2003, it declared that Crocker had reached maximum 
medical improvement. 
{¶ 13} On June 10, 2003, Dr. Clague again wrote that he expected 
continued improvement in Crocker’s hands.  This time, the commission accepted 
that opinion and used it to deny a loss-of-use award because there was still room 
for improvement, and any loss was not yet permanent.  This decision was, indeed, 
an abuse of discretion. 
{¶ 14} Sauder Woodworking and the commission argue that Zamora can 
block revival of only the February 17, 2003 and February 28, 2003 reports.  They 
argue that it cannot be used to disqualify a June 10, 2003, report that did not exist 
when the commission issued its April 25, 2003 maximum-medical-improvement 
order.  In some situations, appellants would be correct, but not here. 
{¶ 15} Appellants’ exclusive focus on dates erodes their argument.  
Zamora would be meaningless if it were concerned only with chronology and not 
content.  If only chronology mattered, a doctor could simply copy an old report, 
put a new date on it, and submit it as new evidence.  Zamora instead seeks to 
prohibit exactly what happened here.  In all three reports, Dr. Clague consistently 
issued the same opinion on the subject of further improvement:  Crocker would 
get better with additional treatment.  When Clague made that statement in 
February, it was deemed unpersuasive, and temporary total disability 
compensation was accordingly denied.  When Dr. Clague made the statement in 
June, the commission suddenly deemed it persuasive and used it to deny 
Crocker’s loss-of-use application.  This result is unfair and inappropriate.  Dr. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
Clague’s opinion on future improvement is either persuasive or it is not.  The 
commission cannot have it both ways, particularly to Crocker’s dual detriment. 
{¶ 16} Contrary to appellants’ representation, this result does not mean 
that once a doctor’s opinion has been rejected, the commission can never rely on 
any future report from that doctor again.  What the commission cannot do is 
accept the same doctor’s opinion on one matter that it previously rejected.  In this 
case, the uniformity of issues rendered the commission’s reliance on Dr. Clague’s 
June 10, 2003 report an abuse of discretion. 
{¶ 17} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. 
Bowman, for appellee. 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Christopher C. Russell, and Darin L. 
Van Vlerah, for appellant Sauder Woodworking Company. 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Kevin J. Reis, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellant Industrial Commission. 
______________________