Title: State ex rel. Davids Cemetery v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. David’s Cemetery v. Indus. Comm., 92 Ohio St.3d 498, 2001-Ohio-1271] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. DAVID’S CEMETERY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. David’s Cemetery v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 
498.] 
Workers’ compensation — Award of temporary total disability compensation by 
Industrial Commission not an abuse of discretion when supported by 
“some evidence.” 
(No. 00-1205 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-800. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On June 5, 1997, appellee-claimant, Larry D. Byrge, 
sustained an injury in the course of and arising from his employment with 
appellant David’s Cemetery.  Five days later, Dr. Krisell D. Fedrizzi diagnosed an 
incisional ventral hernia.  In office notes of the same date, she advised claimant to 
“avoid any heavy lifting and forceful pushing/pulling [until] hernia repaired.”  
Those restrictions were repeated in a July 18, 1997 attending physician’s 
questionnaire (“APQ”), which certified claimant as unable to return to any job 
requiring such duties from June 10, 1997 through the “present.”  There is no 
dispute that claimant’s former position of employment entailed such duties. 
 
Pursuant to Dr. Fedrizzi’s referral, claimant saw a surgeon, Dr. Andrew H. 
Gabriel, on June 12, 1997.  Dr. Gabriel confirmed the diagnosis and 
recommended surgery.  Byrge indicated that he would seek workers’ 
compensation approval.  On June 30, 1997, Gabriel prepared a letter apparently 
for that purpose.  In it, he outlined his proposed surgery and advised that “once 
the procedure is performed, the patient will be off work approximately six 
weeks.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Claimant followed up with an application for a workers’ compensation 
allowance.  After several delays, it was finally heard by a district hearing officer 
(“DHO”) for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.  In an order dated April 7, 
1998, the DHO denied the claim as unrelated to employment.  In so doing, the 
DHO cited Gabriel’s report as well as affidavits from two co-workers — Stephen 
Hopkins and William Hendricks—Hopkins claiming that four days after the 
alleged injury occurred, claimant voluntarily quit. 
 
Claimant’s appeal was heard by a staff hearing officer (“SHO”) on May 
11, 1998.  The SHO vacated the DHO’s order and allowed the claim for 
“incisional ventral hernia.”  Temporary total disability compensation (“TTC”) 
was ordered from June 10, 1997 through July 18, 1997, based on the reports of 
Fedrizzi and Gabriel, and was to continue upon submission of medical proof.  
This order was not appealed. 
 
A June 18, 1998 letter from Gabriel to Fedrizzi indicated that claimant’s 
surgery had been approved and was scheduled for July 8, 1998. The letter also 
indicated that claimant now also suffered from a left inguinal hernia.  There was 
no allegation that this latest condition was work-related. 
 
On June 30, 1998, Fedrizzi completed a C-84 questionnaire that was to be 
submitted with the claimant’s request for further TTC.  This form indicated that 
claimant had been/would be unable to return to his former position of 
employment from June 5, 1997, pending surgery.  The diagnoses originally listed 
were incisional ventral hernia and left inguinal hernia.  The latter, however, was 
then crossed out and initialed by the doctor. 
 
Gabriel ultimately decided to repair the hernias in separate procedures.  He 
successfully repaired the ventral hernia on July 8, 1998, and scheduled the 
remaining operation for August 14, 1998. 
 
On September 18, 1998, David’s Cemetery moved for a “retroactive 
termination of temporary total disability benefits.”  In support, it submitted 
January Term, 2001 
3 
Fedrizzi’s C-84, statements indicating that claimant voluntarily quit, and evidence 
of other employment. 
 
A DHO heard the matter on January 15, 1999.  The DHO broke the 
disputed period — June 10, 1997 through September 27, 1998 — into five parts.  
TTC from June 10, 1997 through July 18, 1997, was upheld on the basis of res 
judicata.  TTC from July 19, 1997 through December 20, 1997, was sustained 
based on “the office notes of Dr. Fedrizzi.”  The DHO declared overpaid, 
compensation from December 21, 1997 through July 7, 1998, because claimant, 
by his own admission, worked intermittently over that time.  TTC for the period 
following surgery for the allowed ventral hernia — July 8, 1998 through August 
14, 1998 — was left intact.  Finally, TTC from August 15, 1998 through 
September 27, 1998 — the recovery period for claimant’s nonallowed inguinal 
hernia — was found to have been overpaid. 
 
The DHO’s order, along with his accompanying reasoning, was affirmed 
by an SHO on March 30, 1999.  The evidence cited in support included “the 
medical reports of Dr. Fedrizzi.”  Further appeal was refused. 
 
David’s Cemetery commenced an action in mandamus before the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in 
awarding TTC.  The court of appeals upheld the commission’s order and denied 
the writ.  This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
Three periods of TTC are at issue: (1) June 10, 1997 through July 18, 
1997; (2) July 19, 1997 through December 20, 1997; and (3) July 8, 1998  through 
August 14, 1998.  Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as 
to each. 
 
David’s Cemetery contests the commission’s conclusion that the 
compensation awarded over the first period was res judicata.  Citing Fedrizzi’s 
June 30, 1998 C-84, David’s Cemetery contends that the reference to a 
nonallowed inguinal hernia coupled with a certification of disability post-dated to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the date of injury suggests that the nonallowed condition contributed to claimant’s 
alleged temporary total disability from the claim’s inception.  This, per David’s 
Cemetery, constitutes a new and changed circumstance sufficient to warrant 
reopening the matter under the commission’s R.C. 4123.52 continuing 
jurisdiction. 
 
David’s Cemetery is correct in naming new and changed circumstances as 
a factor sufficient to invoke continuing jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Cuyahoga Hts. 
Bd. of Edn. v. Johnston (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 132, 12 O.O.3d 128, 388 N.E.2d 
1383.  We do not concur, however, with its assertion that Fedrizzi’s C-84 
compelled that result.  The commission is the sole evaluator of evidentiary weight 
and credibility.  State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 
18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936.  None of the evidence prepared 
contemporaneously with claimant’s injury or first period of disability (June 10, 
1997 through July 18, 1997) mentioned the nonallowed inguinal hernia.  To the 
contrary, the first reference was in Gabriel’s June 18, 1998 letter — 
approximately a year later.  This letter contained no allegation that the 
nonallowed condition was related to claimant’s industrial injury.  Viewing all of 
the evidence in totality, we cannot state that the commission abused its discretion 
in refusing to reopen the issue of causal relationship between disability and a 
nonallowed condition. 
 
We are also unpersuaded that evidence of other employment or of 
voluntary departure warranted the exercise of continuing jurisdiction.  The latter 
was simply evidence supplementing statements originally considered at the April 
7, 1998 DHO hearing.  Likewise, evidence of other employment did not merit 
reconsideration, since claimant was not working over the TTC period declared res 
judicata by the commission.  Accordingly, we sustain the finding of res judicata. 
 
David’s Cemetery next asserts that the remaining disputed periods of TTC 
are unsupported by “some evidence.”  We again disagree.  David’s Cemetery 
January Term, 2001 
5 
engages in a semantics debate as to whether the DHO’s reference to Fedrizzi’s 
“office notes” and the SHO’s reliance on Fedrizzi’s “medical reports” denote 
reliance on the same medical evidence.  We find it unnecessary to engage in such 
a discussion, since both notes and reports from Fedrizzi support TTC from July 
17, 1997 through December 20, 1997.  Her June 10, 1997 office entry instructs 
claimant to refrain from heavy lifting and forceful pushing/pulling until the 
allowed ventral hernia was fixed.  Her August 18, 1998 report confirmed that 
these were indeed her restrictions over the relevant time period.  Because David’s 
Cemetery has not alleged that claimant’s former position of employment was free 
from such physical duties, we hold these documents to be “some evidence” 
supporting TTC over this period. 
 
In attacking the final period of TTC at issue — July 8, 1998 through 
August 14, 1998 — David’s Cemetery again asserts a lack of “some evidence” in 
support.  David’s Cemetery notes that the SHO based her award “upon medical 
evidence finding claimant to be unable to return to his former position of 
employment due to the allowed conditions in this claim,” without identifying to 
which evidence she was referring.  David’s Cemetery also notes that elsewhere in 
the order, the SHO lists reliance on Fedrizzi.  We agree that this ambiguity is 
confusing but do not agree that, under these facts, it compels vacation of the 
commission’s order.  Ambiguous commission orders are generally returned for 
clarification.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Kirschner v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 82 Ohio 
St.3d 90, 694 N.E.2d 460; State ex rel. Hall v. Marion Dresser Indus., Inc. (1997), 
79 Ohio St.3d 540, 684 N.E.2d 70; State ex rel. Buttolph v. Gen. Motors Corp., 
Terex Div. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 73, 679 N.E.2d 702; State ex rel. Buchanan v. 
Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 168, 532 N.E.2d 743; State ex rel. Mitchell v. 
Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721.  In 
this case, however, a return for clarification of the evidence relied upon is, to us, 
unnecessary, since all of the medical evidence — including that of Dr. Steven S. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Wunder, who examined claimant on David’s Cemetery’s behalf — articulates an 
approximately six-week, post-operative recovery period.  See State ex rel. 
Jackman v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 397, 650 N.E.2d 467; State ex 
rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.  Accordingly, we 
find no abuse of discretion in the award of TTC from July 8, 1998, the date of 
surgery, through August 14, 1998. 
 
David’s Cemetery issues a last broad challenge to TTC eligibility based on 
claimant’s employment status at various times during the disputed periods.  Its 
first argument focuses on the fact that claimant quit his job at David’s Cemetery 
after he was hurt.  This argument is founded on early voluntary abandonment 
cases such as State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 
29 Ohio App.3d 145, 29 OBR 162, 504 N.E.2d 451, and State ex rel. Ashcraft v. 
Indus. Comm. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 42, 517 N.E.2d 533 — cases that have since 
been clarified by our recent decision in State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. 
(2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 376, 732 N.E.2d 355.  Baker explained that the critical 
abandonment in evaluating TTC eligibility was abandonment of the entire work 
force, not simply abandonment of the former position of employment.  This did 
not occur here.  Other cases cited by David’s Cemetery, such as State ex rel. 
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 
469; State ex rel. McClain v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 407, 732 
N.E.2d 383; and State ex rel. Smith v. Superior’s Brand Meats (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 408, 667 N.E.2d 1217, are not dispositive, because they deal with 
employment discharge, not a voluntary quit. 
 
David’s Cemetery also suggests that claimant’s intermittent employment 
from December 21, 1997 through July 7, 1998, precludes TTC thereafter.  This is 
incorrect.  Claimant’s employment, even if sporadic, indeed bars TTC over the 
period in which he was employed.  State ex rel. Blabac v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 
87 Ohio St.3d 113, 717 N.E.2d 336.  It does not, however, foreclose TTC should 
January Term, 2001 
7 
claimant again become temporarily and totally disabled, which clearly occurred 
during claimant’s post-surgical recovery.  State ex rel. Bing v. Indus. Comm. 
(1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 424, 575 N.E.2d 177. 
 
For the reasons cited above, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby 
affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, David C. Korte and Michelle D. Bach, for 
appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A., Gary D. Plunkett and Roger A. Lee, for 
appellee Byrge. 
__________________