Title: State ex rel. WCI Steel, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. WCI Steel, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 24, 2002-Ohio-3315.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WCI STEEL, INC., APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 
OF OHIO; TOWNSEND, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. WCI Steel, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 24, 2002-
Ohio-3315.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s award of wage-loss 
compensation vacated by court of appeals — Court orders commission 
to reconsider the evidence — Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and 
commission’s award of wage-loss compensation reinstated, when — 
Inconsistency in doctor’s report due to bureau’s form. 
(No. 2000-2345 — Submitted March 26, 2002 — Decided July 10, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-22. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
The workers’ compensation claim of appellant-claimant, Ray L. 
Townsend, has been allowed for “non-displaced fracture coccyx; lumbosacral 
sprain; major depressive disorder; herniated right disc L4-5.”  It has been 
specifically disallowed for “herniated disc at L5-S1; aggravation of pre-existing 
compression [of] traversing nerves and compromise right exiting foramina.” 
{¶2} 
Claimant made several requests for wage-loss compensation, 
covering consecutive periods.  In support of those applications were reports from 
Drs. Edward G. Myers and Edward J. Urban.  In an August 24, 1998 report, Dr. 
Myers attributed claimant’s work restrictions in part to a herniated disc at L5-S1 
and compression of the traversing nerves—both nonallowed conditions. 
{¶3} 
Dr. Urban on November 5, 1998 completed a form from the Ohio 
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation that asked him to list all restrictions arising 
from the claim’s allowed conditions.  Dr. Urban wrote: “No bending, climbing, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
squatting, stooping, pushing, or pulling-overhead reaching;  or [l]ifting more then 
[sic] 15 lbs. [or] [s]itting, standing, and walking more then [sic] 20 min. at a 
time.”  The form also contained a check-the-box section requesting the physician 
to “identify the physical capacity of the injured worker.”  It included inquiries as 
to the claimant’s ability to sit, stand, walk, bend, squat, crawl, climb, and reach. 
{¶4} 
In addition, there were sections on claimant’s abilities to lift and 
carry.  Six weight ranges were listed with the following choices: never, 
occasionally, frequently, and continuously.  In the 11-to-20 pound category, Dr. 
Urban checked “never.”  Of further relevance was his designation “no” in 
response to whether claimant’s hands could be used repetitively for fine 
manipulation. 
{¶5} 
A Staff Hearing Officer for the Industrial Commission of Ohio 
awarded wage-loss compensation after finding, among other things, that the 
reports of Drs. Myers and Urban were evidence that causally related claimant’s 
physical restrictions and resulting wage loss to his allowed conditions. 
{¶6} 
Claimant’s employer, appellee WCI Steel, Inc., sought a writ of 
mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.  Persuaded that the cited 
reports were deficient, the court of appeals issued a limited writ of mandamus and 
ordered the commission to vacate the award and reconsider the evidence. 
{¶7} 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶8} 
To the commission, the Myers and Urban reports were “some 
evidence” of a causal relationship between claimant’s postinjury wage loss and 
his industrial injury.  To the court of appeals they were not.  Claimant defends the 
commission’s evidentiary interpretation in this court and asks us to reinstate the 
award.  Our review favors the claimant. 
{¶9} 
Claimant does not challenge the disqualification of Dr. Myers’s 
August 1998 report, implicitly conceding that it indeed referred to the specifically 
January Term, 2002 
3 
disallowed conditions of herniated disc L5-S1 and nerve traversal.  He does, 
however, forcefully contest the rejection of Dr. Urban’s report. 
{¶10} The court of appeals’ criticism had two bases.  First, it concluded 
that Urban’s indication of a restriction against the use of hands for fine 
manipulation implied that nonallowed conditions contributed to claimant’s 
inability to return to his former job. 
{¶11} We find this to be an inappropriate inference.  Crucial to our 
finding is an understanding of how this information came about.  The disputed 
Urban report was on a bureau-prepared form.  Near the top was a blank space for 
the following: “List all restrictions which are the direct result of the allowed 
conditions in the claim.”  In response, Dr. Urban wrote: “No bending, climbing, 
squatting, stooping, pushing or pulling-overhead reaching; or [l]ifting more then 
[sic] 15 lbs. [or] [s]itting, standing, and walking more then [sic] 20 min. at a 
time.”  The court of appeals made no mention of any of these restrictions being 
inconsistent with the allowed conditions in the claim. 
{¶12} The second half of the form asked the doctor to “identify the 
physical capacity of the injured worker.”  It contained check-the-box inquiries as 
to claimant’s capacity to sit, stand, walk, bend, squat, crawl, climb, and reach.  
There were questions on lifting and carrying limitations as well as questions on 
the capacity of claimant’s hands and feet for certain repetitive movements. 
{¶13} When the form is viewed as a whole, the difficulty with the court 
of appeals’ reasoning is this: the form asks the doctor to answer questions as to 
parts of the body not associated with the claimant’s allowed conditions.  The 
ready response to this, of course, is that the doctor could have answered in the 
affirmative when asked about claimant’s ability to use his hands for fine 
manipulation.  And this is a legitimate observation.  One must remember, 
however, that claimants can have nonallowed conditions and still collect 
compensation.  The key is whether and to what extent the nonallowed conditions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
contribute to the disability.  State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 452, 619 N.E.2d 1018.  Even if the nonallowed conditions are severe, they 
are irrelevant as long as the allowed conditions are independently disabling. Id. 
{¶14} In this case, the bureau’s own form asked Dr. Urban to address 
claimant’s physical capacity, including the capacity of body parts unrelated to his 
allowed conditions.  Dr. Urban did so.  The bureau also asked Dr. Urban to list the 
conditions contributing to claimant’s inability to return to his former position of 
employment.  Dr. Urban did so and enumerated only claimant’s allowed 
conditions as being the cause of his inability to return to his former job.  As such, 
Dr. Urban’s report cannot be disqualified on the basis of nonallowed conditions. 
{¶15} The court of appeals also faulted Dr. Urban’s report for being 
internally inconsistent.  This finding was based on two things: (1) Dr. Urban’s 
prohibition against “lifting more [than] 15 lbs.” and (2) his check-the-box 
indication of “never” in response to the question of whether claimant could lift 
between 11 and 20 pounds.  Again, the problem lies in the bureau-designed form.  
Dr. Urban was asked to list, in narrative form, claimant’s restrictions.  He wrote 
that claimant could not lift above 15 pounds.  The bureau then listed six weight 
categories in which the doctor had the choice of only “never” “occasionally,” 
“frequently,” or “continuously.”  Unfortunately, because the form’s closest 
relevant weight range was eleven to twenty pounds and Dr. Urban had set the 
uppermost limit at fifteen, checking off any of the designated responses would 
have resulted in internal inconsistency.  Presumably, Dr. Urban checked “never” 
because claimant could not lift between sixteen and twenty pounds.  If, however, 
he had checked “continuously” because claimant could lift eleven to fifteen 
pounds, the same accusation of inconsistency could still be made.  So, too, with 
the designations “occasionally” and “frequently.” 
{¶16} The bureau form, therefore, put Dr. Urban in a no-win situation.  
Dr. Urban obviously did his best to answer the questions truthfully and 
January Term, 2002 
5 
accommodate the questions asked by the bureau.  Claimant can never lift up to 
twenty pounds and, based on the makeup of the forms, Dr. Urban’s answers were 
not irreconcilable.  Accordingly, his report is deemed “some evidence” supporting 
a causal relationship between wage loss and the allowed conditions. 
{¶17} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the 
commission’s award of wage-loss compensation is ordered reinstated. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. 
Jaffy, for appellant. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., and Deborah Sesek for 
appellee. 
__________________