Title: State ex rel. Paraskevopoulos v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. PARASKEVOPOULOS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 
OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Paraskevopoulos v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d 
___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s denial of permanent total 
disability compensation not an abuse of discretion, when. 
(No. 95-2118 — Submitted June 9, 1998 — Decided September 23, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD09-1409. 
 
Appellant-claimant Dimitrios Paraskevopoulos’s workers’ compensation 
claim was allowed for “[l]ower back, neck injury, lumbosacral strain and cervical 
sprain; chronic pain syndrome with chronic myofascial strains to the cervical, 
thoracic and lumbar regions.”  In 1993, he moved appellee, Industrial Commission 
of Ohio, for permanent total disability compensation (“PTD”).  Claimant’s 
chiropractor, Thomas E. Eliopulos, D.C., assessed a forty-six percent permanent 
partial impairment and opined that claimant’s combined medical and nonmedical 
factors rendered him unable to work.  Dr. Eliopulos did not state whether 
claimant’s 
medical 
conditions 
alone 
permitted 
sustained 
remunerative 
employment.  Another examiner, Dr. Janalee K. Rissover, felt that claimant could 
perform sedentary sustained remunerative employment, as did Dr. Kenneth R. 
Hanington, who assessed a twenty-percent permanent partial impairment. 
 
The Bethesda Work Capacity Center also prepared a report that described 
claimant’s rehabilitation potential as “guarded.”  Claimant also underwent a 
nineteen-day course of treatment at the Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati Pain Center.  
At discharge, three of five physical therapy goals had been met.  The Pain Center’s 
Discharge Summary stated regarding claimant’s vocational rehabilitation: 
 
2
 
“The patient voices positive re-activation and pain management gains from 
the Pain Center Program participation * * *.  During this program he was able to 
identify his basic interest areas and begin exploring potential vocational options.  
He was also able to gain insight into the importance of educational pursuits.  Thus 
it is recommended [that] he pursue his GED to improve his academic skills and 
expand potential vocational options.  It is also recommended he re-apply for 
Bureau of Worker[s’] Compensation Rehabilitation Division services as well as 
make application to Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation for potential 
supplemental vocational rehabilitation services.  In addition, contacts can be made 
with community small business agencies to explore personal business options and 
interests.  The physical rehabilitation process should continue with a structured re-
conditioning program to maximize potential work/activity tolerances.” 
 
The commission’s staff hearing officers, on June 6, 1994, denied PTD, 
writing: 
 
“The claimant was examined by Dr. Hanington at the request of the 
Industrial Commission.  Dr. Hanington opined that the industrial injury does 
prevent the claimant from returning to his former position of employment.  He 
further opined that the claimant should avoid activities that involve repetitive 
bending, stooping, lifting, squatting, or carrying objects weighing more than 20 
pounds.  Dr. Hanington further opined that the claimant should have no difficulty 
with the use of his upper extremities nor any difficulty with walking, sitting or 
standing, as long as the latter two were not required constantly throughout the 
work day. 
 
“The Staff Hearing Officers find that the claimant is unable to return to his 
former position of employment as a result of the industrial injury.  The Staff 
Hearing Officers further find that the claimant is capable of performing light and 
 
3
sedentary employment within the restrictions as set forth in the medical report of 
Dr. Hanington. 
 
“The Staff Hearing Officers find that the claimant is 48 years old, has a 9th 
grade education and work experience as a painter and sandblaster.  The Staff 
Hearing Officers further find that the claimant was born and raised in Greece and 
is unable to read or write English.  The Staff Hearing Officers further find that the 
claimant participated in a Pain Center Program at the Jewish Hospital of 
Cincinnati in August of 1993.  The Staff Hearing Officers find that part of the Pain 
Center Program was an evaluation by a rehabilitation consultant as to the 
claimant’s rehabilitation potential.  Rehabilitation consultant Gary Bittle reported 
that the claimant would benefit from pursuing his GED certificate to improve his 
academic skills and expand potential vocational options.  Mr. Bittle recommended 
that the claimant apply for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation 
Division Services as well as make application to the Ohio Bureau of Vocational 
Rehabilitation for supplemental vocational rehabilitation services.  * * * 
 
“The Staff Hearing Officers find that the claimant’s age is an asset which 
would enable him to participate in further rehabilitation programs and enhance his 
academic skills and expand his vocational options.  The Staff Hearing Officers 
further find that the claimant’s age is an asset which would enable him to acquire 
the skills to perform light and sedentary employment within his physical 
limitations as a result of the industrial injury.  Accordingly, the Staff Hearing 
Officers find that the claimant is able to engage in sustained remunerative 
employment.” 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
PTD.  The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ. 
 
4
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
A.P. Anninos, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Steven P. Fixler, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  For the most part, the parties do not dispute claimant’s 
medical ability to perform sustained remunerative employment.  While claimant 
does assert that the commission abused its discretion in failing to expressly factor 
pain into its medical analysis, his argument is negated by State ex rel. Unger v. 
Indus. Comm. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 672, 640 N.E.2d 833, which held that the 
factor of pain was sufficiently considered when the complaints about the pain were 
acknowledged in the medical evidence on which the commission relied.  Because 
the relied-upon evidence made such an acknowledgment in this case, claimant’s 
proposition lacks merit. 
 
The rest of the dispute involves the commission’s nonmedical review.  
Claimant’s initial challenge is procedural.  Claimant asserts that the commission 
abused its discretion by failing to consider the Bethesda Work Capacity Center 
rehabilitation report.  This argument is unpersuasive. 
 
Nonconsidered evidence, as a general rule, prompts a return of the cause to 
the commission for additional consideration.  State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. 
(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057.  However, in some cases, the content 
of the evidence relied upon can eliminate the need for a return of the cause.  For 
example, a return of the cause has been dispensed with where the evidence not 
considered was incapable of supporting a conclusion contrary to that reached by 
the commission.  State ex rel. Shields v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 264, 
 
5
658 N.E.2d 296.  In this case, we find that the Bethesda report adds little new 
information to the PTD determination.  Concededly, if one looks only at its 
“guarded” assessment of claimant’s rehabilitation potential, the report could 
support an outcome contrary to that reached by the commission.  However, when 
viewed as a whole, the value of the Bethesda report is diminished by the passage 
of time and the existence of other sources of similar information.  As to the latter, 
much of the Bethesda report — which is only three pages long — is in part a 
recitation of claimant’s nonmedical profile — information that is contained in 
other evidence that the commission did consider. 
 
Equally important, many of the findings in the Bethesda report — 
particularly the assessment of claimant’s then current physical capacities — no 
longer were valid after claimant’s completion of the nineteen-day pain 
management program at Jewish Hospital.  The detailed thirteen-page discharge 
summary that followed claimant’s participation in the pain management program 
showed improvement in some of the areas cited in the Bethesda report.  Therefore, 
what information that may have been unique to the Bethesda report was not 
necessarily reliable at the time PTD was considered. 
 
We find, therefore, that the commission’s failure to consider the Bethesda 
report was ameliorated by the commission’s consideration of other evidence of 
record.  Accordingly, a return of the cause for further consideration of that report 
is unnecessary. 
 
Turning to the remaining substantive argument, the commission 
successfully argued below that its order satisfied State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. 
(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, and should not be disturbed.  We 
affirm that finding. 
 
6
 
Two factors are central to the commission’s finding — illiteracy and time.  
The latter has two elements: (1) claimant’s age and (2) the amount of time 
claimant has had and continues to have to remedy his illiteracy.  The commission 
used claimant’s age to ameliorate the effects of his illiteracy.  Standing alone, 
however, age is insufficient to justify a PTD denial.  As we observed in State ex 
rel. Hall v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 289, 292, 685 N.E.2d 1245, 1247, 
“[a]ge * * * is immaterial if claimant lacks the intellectual capacity to learn.” 
 
In Hall, we ultimately ordered relief consistent with State ex rel. Gay v. 
Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666, citing claimant’s sixth grade 
education and illiteracy.  There is, however, an important distinction between this 
case and Hall.  Here, claimant’s illiteracy relates more to his status as an 
immigrant than to any intellectual deficit.  To the contrary, testing has revealed 
claimant to have above-average intelligence.  Therefore, unlike Hall, there is no 
evidence that claimant is incapable of learning to read and write English. 
 
This is particularly important when combined with the other facet of time 
noted above — the time that claimant has had and continues to have to learn 
English.  Claimant has not worked since 1990.  Since then, claimant has related 
that a typical day consists of “sitting in a chair watching television, smoking and 
drinking coffee.” 
 
A claimant’s failure to make reasonable efforts to enhance his/her 
rehabilitation reemployment potential can be a factor in a PTD determination.  In 
State ex rel. Bowling v. Natl. Can Corp. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 148, 153, 672 
N.E.2d 161, 165, we upheld the commission’s denial of PTD to a sixty-six-year-
old claimant with a fifth grade education, writing: 
 
“The commission’s independent review of claimant’s nonmedical factors 
determined that claimant’s age, education, and work history, while not entirely 
 
7
favorable, were not insurmountable barriers to re-employment.  The commission 
stressed the claimant’s failure to make any effort to enhance his re-employment 
prospects. 
 
“The commission — as do we — demands a certain accountability of this 
claimant, who, despite the time and medical ability to do so, never tried to further 
his education or to learn new skills.  There was certainly ample opportunity.  At 
least fifteen years passed between the plant closure and claimant’s application for 
permanent total disability compensation, and claimant was only age forty-seven 
when the plant shut down.  Under these circumstances, we do not find that the 
commission’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion.” 
 
The current claimant was only age forty-four at the time that he last worked.  
He was only age forty-eight when PTD was denied, and is only age fifty-two now.  
There are no physical impediments to his undertaking remedial education, and 
testing establishes him as having above-average intelligence.  The commission’s 
determination that claimant is capable of enhancing his reemployment potential is 
not, therefore, an abuse of discretion. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.