Title: State ex rel. Tradesmen Int’l v. Indus. Comm’n

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Tradesmen Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
2342.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2342 
THE STATE EX REL. TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, 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. Tradesmen Internatl. v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2342.] 
Mandamus—Workers’ compensation—Permanent total disability—Start date for 
compensation—Industrial Commission did not abuse discretion in using 
date of doctor’s report as start date when doctor did not list allowed 
conditions—Report that claimant could perform sedentary work can be 
some evidence of permanent total disability when other findings in report 
effectively preclude any sustained remunerative employment. 
(No. 2014-0678—Submitted March 10, 2015—Decided June 24, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-122,  
2014-Ohio-1064. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Tradesmen International, appeals the judgment of 
the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying its request for a writ of mandamus.  
The court of appeals concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion 
when it granted the claimant permanent-total-disability compensation or when it 
ordered compensation to begin on April 26, 2011, the date of the report of Oscar 
B. DePaz, M.D. 
{¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals.   
 
Facts 
{¶ 3} On July 23, 2003, appellee Raymond Smith was injured while 
working for Tradesmen.  His workers’ compensation claim was allowed for low 
back sprain, right shoulder sprain, cervical and left-wrist sprain, right paracentral 
disc protrusion, chronic pain syndrome, and adjustment disorder with depressed 
mood. 
{¶ 4} In 2011, Smith applied for permanent-total-disability compensation 
and submitted a report from his treating physician, Dr. DePaz, dated April 26, 
2011, which stated: 
 
 
[I]t is my opinion that Mr. Smith has significant functional 
impairment, and at this time his activity level is restricted to 
sedentary activities with maximum lifting of 10 lbs.  He should 
avoid repetitive bending, stooping, twisting, lifting, pushing, or 
pulling.  Mr. Smith will need frequent periods of rest which at 
times will require him laying down to relieve his back pain.  He 
will have significant difficulty maintaining a regular schedule, and 
at times, he will need periods of continuous rest to control 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
exacerbations of his back pain.  Therefore, he will not be able to 
maintain any type of regular working schedule. 
 
{¶ 5} The commission submitted medical reports from Timothy J. 
McCormick, D.O., and Jacqueline Orlando, Ph.D., dated March 2012.  Both 
reports opined that Smith was incapable of working based on the allowed 
conditions of his claim. 
{¶ 6} A staff hearing officer concluded that Smith was unable to perform 
any sustained remunerative employment solely as a result of his allowed 
conditions.  The hearing officer relied on the reports of Drs. McCormick, 
Orlando, and DePaz as support for the decision to award Smith permanent-total-
disability compensation. 
{¶ 7} Tradesmen filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that 
the commission had abused its discretion when it ordered compensation to begin 
on April 26, 2011, the date of Dr. DePaz’s report.  Tradesmen alleged that Dr. 
DePaz’s report did not find that Smith’s disability was solely the result of his 
medical impairment. 
{¶ 8} The court of appeals concluded that the DePaz report dated April 26, 
2011, was some evidence to support the start date for the permanent-total-
disability compensation.  The court reasoned that while Dr. DePaz stated that the 
claimant could perform sedentary work, he also outlined restrictions so narrow as 
to effectively preclude all sustained remunerative employment.  Therefore, the 
court denied the requested writ. 
{¶ 9} This matter is before the court on Tradesmen’s appeal of right. 
  
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 10} Tradesmen concedes that the reports of McCormick and Orlando 
constituted evidence that supported the commission’s award of permanent-total-
disability compensation.  However, Tradesmen is hoping to eliminate the DePaz 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
report as support for the start date for paying compensation and to require the 
commission to examine the claimant’s nonmedical disability factors.  Thus, the 
sole issue before the court is whether the DePaz report constituted some evidence 
to support the commission’s decision to begin payment of the award as of the date 
of the report. 
{¶ 11} Tradesmen argues that the DePaz report does not support the 
commission’s decision because the report failed to list the allowed conditions in 
the claim and stated that Smith was capable of sedentary work with limitations.  
Tradesmen maintains that Dr. DePaz did not base his opinion solely on medical 
factors; thus, the commission was required to also review Smith’s nonmedical 
disability factors in order to rely on the DePaz report to establish the start date for 
compensation. 
{¶ 12} The party challenging the commission’s order has the burden of 
demonstrating abuse of discretion, which in this context is defined as a showing 
that the commission’s decision was rendered without some evidence to support it.  
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 508 N.E.2d 936 
(1987).  Tradesmen fails to establish that the commission abused its discretion 
when it based the start date of the permanent-total-disability award on the DePaz 
report. 
{¶ 13} When a medical expert fails to consider the claimant’s allowed 
conditions, the expert’s opinion alone cannot constitute some evidence on which 
the commission may rely to support its decision.  State ex rel. Richardson v. 
Quarto Mining Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 358, 359, 652 N.E.2d 1027 (1995).  Although 
the DePaz report did not specifically list the allowed conditions in Smith’s claim, 
a doctor's failure to state verbatim the commission's description of the allowed 
conditions is not always fatal to a report.  The commission has some discretion to 
determine whether the doctor’s description of the claimant’s condition actually 
refers to the allowed condition, albeit in different words.  See State ex rel. Jeffrey 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
Mining Mach. Div., Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 56 Ohio St.3d 91, 
564 N.E.2d 437 (1990) (it was within the commission’s discretion to accept that 
the medical reports’ references to “lumbar strain” and “low back pain” were 
meant to describe the allowed condition of “herniated nucleus pulposes L5-S1”). 
{¶ 14} In this case, the commission knew that Dr. DePaz was Smith’s 
treating physician.  His report referred to Smith’s back pain and various 
restrictions to relieve his back pain.  There was no indication that DePaz had 
considered any nonallowed medical conditions.  Thus, it was within the 
commission’s discretion as the exclusive evaluator of the weight and credibility of 
the evidence, State ex rel. Burley, 31 Ohio St.3d at 20-21, 508 N.E.2d 936, to 
accept DePaz’s identification of back pain as referring to the allowed conditions 
in the claim. 
{¶ 15} The DePaz statement that Smith is restricted to sedentary activities 
does not render the report insufficient.  A physician’s report that states that a 
claimant is capable of sedentary work but does not include additional specific 
physical restrictions is sufficient to constitute some evidence on which the 
commission may rely.  State ex rel. O’Brien v. Cincinnati, Inc., 10th Dist. 
Franklin No. 07AP-825, 2008-Ohio-2841, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 16} However, if the physician has imposed specific restrictions in the 
report, the commission cannot simply rely on the physician’s ultimate conclusion 
regarding the claimant’s capacity to work.  Rather, the commission must 
determine whether the doctor’s ultimate conclusion is actually consistent with the 
physical restrictions imposed by the doctor.  If the physical restrictions are so 
limiting as to render the claimant incapable of working, and yet the doctor 
concludes that the claimant is able to work, the report cannot constitute evidence 
on which the commission may rely.  Id. at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 17} The DePaz report stated that “Smith has significant functional 
impairment, and at this time this activity level is restricted to sedentary activities 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
with maximum lifting of 10 lbs.”  But Dr. DePaz also included several other 
significant restrictions and stated that Smith will require frequent periods of rest.  
The commission could not consider just the recommended sedentary exertion 
level; it was required to also consider the physical restrictions detailed by Dr. 
DePaz.  In doing so, the commission did not abuse its discretion by determining 
that, based on the entire report, the DePaz opinion was evidence of permanent 
total disability based on the medical factors alone.  Therefore, there was no need 
for further consideration of the nonmedical disability factors.  State ex rel. Galion 
Mfg. Div., Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Haygood, 60 Ohio St.3d 38, 40, 573 N.E.2d 
60 (1991). 
{¶ 18} This court’s role in the review of mandamus actions challenging 
the commission’s decision is limited to whether there is some evidence in the 
record to support the commission’s stated basis for its decision.  State ex rel. 
Burley, 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 508 N.E.2d 936, syllabus.  Here, the commission’s 
order identified three medical reports relied upon and explained that its decision 
to award permanent-total-disability compensation was based solely on the 
claimant’s medical conditions.  Therefore, the commission did not abuse its 
discretion by relying on the date of the DePaz report as the date on which to begin 
paying the award. 
{¶ 19} 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. 
___________________ 
Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., and Michael L. Squillace, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
 
Philip J. Fulton Law Office and Chelsea J. Fulton, for appellee Raymond 
Smith. 
___________________