Title: State ex rel. Whetstone v. Bonded Oil Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Whetstone, Appellant, v. Bonded Oil Company;                   
Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.                                         
[Cite as State ex rel. Whetstone v. Bonded Oil Co.                               
(1995),                                                                          
Ohio St.3d       .]                                                              
Workers' compensation -- Nonallowed pre-existing condition may                   
     not be considered under Stephenson's "all other factors"                    
     -- Permanent total disability compensation not permitted                    
     by combining insignificant work injury with serious                         
     nonindustrial health problems.                                              
     (No. 94-166 -- Submitted June 6, 1995 -- Decided August                     
16, 1995.)                                                                       
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
93AP-81.                                                                         
     Appellant-claimant, Phillip Whetstone,  is a                                
forty-six-year-old high-school graduate.  When he was                            
twenty-five, he injured his back in the course of and arising                    
from his employment with respondent Bonded Oil Company.                          
Although treatment has been conservative, he has not worked                      
since 1976.  In 1980, his claim was additionally allowed for                     
"severe depressive neurosis."                                                    
     In 1988, claimant applied for permanent total disability                    
compensation.  Medical evidence before appellee, Industrial                      
Commission of Ohio, uniformly found that claimant was                            
physically capable of gainful employment.  Psychologically, the                  
examiners noted claimant's explosive personality.  In terms of                   
impairment related to the industrial injury, the evidence                        
ranged from zero percent permanent partial psychiatric                           
impairment to permanent total impairment.  As to the latter,                     
Dr. Thomas T. F. Tsai based his opinion on the following                         
observations:                                                                    
     "* * * Mr. Whetstone * * * [a]ppears to be somewhat tense                   
and started to talk without asking.  He sat down quickly and                     
began to give [many] details about his suffering.  He's well                     
oriented in all spheres.  His speech is not clear but although                   
[sic] is understandable due to his anxiety[,] his                                
verbalizations [are] not well organized.  His memory is intact                   
and his intelligence is estimated at average level.  His                         
thought processes showed no gross abnormalities but thought                      
contents were saturated with hopelessness and [he] feels bad                     
for himself.  His affect showed definite depression with                         
anxiety and somatization.  His judgment and insights are only                    
fair."                                                                           
     Dr. Lee Howard reported:                                                    
     "The claimant's present complaints include irritability                     
and explosive outbursts.  However, it should be noted that the                   
claimant admitted problems with physical abuse with his first                    
wife prior to the Industrial accident in question.  He is                        
currently separated from his second wife due to the same                         
problem.  The modal diagnosis is a  passive aggressive                           
personality disorder with explosive features.  This condition                    
predated the Industrial accident in question and there are no                    
evidences [sic] of aggravation.                                                  
     "Although the claimant does experience some depression, it                  
is primarily secondary to his personality disorder which causes                  
an inability to effectively interact with others.  The                           
industrial accident is minimally responsible.  He uses it as a                   
source for projection of blame.  There is poor motivation for                    
change.  He has not attempted to work for approximately 12                       
years."                                                                          
     Dr. Paul H. Dillahunt assessed a forty-four-percent                         
combined-effects impairment.  He also stated:                                    
     "In addition to the orthopedic impairment, it must be                       
noted that claimant's mental impairment would further                            
compromise claimant's occupational opportunities.  Claimant is                   
tense, nervous, irritable, anxious, shaky with a short fuse and                  
he lacks coping skills which would indicate claimant should be                   
employed in a low stress occupation.  Claimant's memory is                       
impaired for recent and remote events and claimant has periods                   
of forgetfulness which would compromise claimant's ability to                    
remember locations or work-like procedures or to understand and                  
remember detailed instructions. * * *   Claimant has social                      
withdrawal with isolation which would compromise claimant's                      
ability to work in coordination with or in proximity to others                   
without being distracted by them.  * * * Claimant has periods                    
of confusion which would question claimant's ability to sustain                  
an ordinary routine without special supervision.  Claimant                       
retains the ability to comprehend and reason which indicates                     
claimant has [the] ability to make simple work related                           
decisions."                                                                      
     The commission, on April 29, 1992, denied permanent total                   
disability compensation, writing:                                                
     "Claimant is age 43, is a high school graduate and has a                    
work history as a dockworker and auto reconditioner.  Claimant                   
has had conservative medical care and has not had surgery.  Dr.                  
Howard opined claimant could return to his former position of                    
employment.  Drs. Kackley and Dillahunt opined claimant could                    
engage in sustained remunerative employment.  Based upon                         
claimant's young age, [being a] high school graduate and the                     
above medical findings, claimant is found not to be                              
[permanently and  totally disabled]."                                            
     Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of                      
Appeals for Franklin County, claiming that the commission                        
abused its discretion in failing to factor in the "passive                       
aggressive personality disorder with explosive features"                         
referred to by Dr. Howard.  Because that condition had not been                  
allowed in the claim, the appellate court found no error and                     
denied the writ.                                                                 
     This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                    
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     John R. Workman, for appellant.                                             
     Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Janie D.                         
Roberts, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.                               
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm.                       
(1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 173, 31 OBR 369, 374, 509 N.E.2d                      
946, 951, directed the commission to "look at the claimant's                     
age, education, work record, and all other factors, such as                      
physical, psychological, and sociological that are contained                     
within the record in making its determination of permanent                       
total disability."                                                               
     Claimant has a nonallowed pre-existing condition that Dr.                   
Howard described as a "passive aggressive personality disorder                   
with explosive features."  Claimant asserts that this condition                  
falls within the "all other factors" of which Stephenson                         
demands consideration.                                                           
     Claimant's position effectively nullifies the important                     
distinction between allowed and nonallowed conditions by                         
according the two equal consideration, the latter under the                      
guise of "all other factors."  Claimant's proposition also                       
effectively permits a claimant to receive permanent total                        
disability compensation by combining the most insignificant                      
work injury with serious nonindustrial health problems.  Being                   
unable to ascribe either intent to Stephenson, we reject                         
claimant's argument.                                                             
     Claimant also unpersuasively asserts a violation of State                   
ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567                      
N.E.2d 245.  The citation of claimant's youth, educational                       
attainment, and history of conservative medical care, however,                   
is consistent with an order that we approved in State ex rel.                    
Hart v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 95, 609 N.E.2d 166.                   
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.                   
                                 Judgment affirmed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,                        
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.