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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State ex rel. Ewart, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., 
Appellees. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ewart v. Indus. Comm. (1996),_____ Ohio St.3d 
_____.] 
Workers’ compensation -- Industrial Commission’s order denying 
application for permanent total disability compensation upheld 
by Supreme Court, when. 
 
(No. 94-1688--Submitted May 21, 1996--Decided July 24, 1996.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 
93APD07-936. 
 
Appellant-claimant, William Ewart, was injured on August 9, 1982 
while in the course of and arising from his employment with appellee 
Refiners Transport and Terminal.  His workers’ compensation claim was 
initially allowed for “acute low back strain.”  All treatment for that 
condition has been conservative.  The claim was later allowed for 
“functional overlay; depressive disorder.”  There is no evidence of record 
that claimant has ever been treated for either psychological condition. 
 
Claimant applied to appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for 
permanent total disability compensation in 1989.  Dr. Paul H. Dillahunt 
 
2
performed a combined effects review and concluded that claimant had a 
sixty-two percent permanent partial impairment.  He felt that claimant could 
not resume his job as a trucker but could do other sustained remunerative 
work. 
 
Two rehabilitation reports were presented.  The first, prepared by 
Ginny Linder, a rehabilitation counselor at the University of Florida, 
concluded: 
 
“Mr. Ewart impressed me as an intelligent individual with restrictions 
in his ability to bend, lift, stand, etc.  He seemed convinced of his inability 
to obtain non-truckdriver employment based on his limited work 
experience, age, and history of injury/restrictions.  Having worked and 
enjoyed tanker driving for many years, he appeared to have little confidence 
in his ability to get other jobs and seemed reluctant to consider applying his 
skills to other areas.  His cognitive aptitude and achievement scores were 
strong and could be applied to jobs more suitable to his limitations with a 
willing employer.  While finding a job may be difficult due to the factors he 
mentioned, it cannot be done until he believes more in himself.” 
 
3
 
Dr. Naomi Waldbaum at the commission’s W.O.Walker Industrial 
Rehabilitation Center also prepared a report.  The only physical difficulty 
observed was claimant’s complaint of “mild chronic low back pain.”  No 
psychiatric impediment to retraining was noted.  The rehabilitation division, 
on May 31, 1991, however, closed claimant’s file, stating: 
 
“The results of the vocational evaluation indicate that Mr. Ewart 
presents with poor rehabilitation potential.  Mr. Ewart has a 22 year work 
history as a truck driver and presents with few transferrable skills.  He has 
above average general learning ability and verbal ability, however, he has 
not worked in nine years, and at age 56 he is a poor candidate for 
retraining.” 
 
The commission, following a hearing on February 7, 1992, denied 
permanent total disability compensation, writing: 
 
“The reports of Drs. Yosowitz, Katz, Haude, Greenspan, and 
Dillahunt were reviewed and evaluated.  This order is based particularly 
upon the report of Dr. Dillahunt, evidence in the file and the evidence 
adduced at the hearing.   
 
4
 
“The report of Dr. Dillahunt, which addresses the issue of combined 
effects from the allowed conditions, was found persuasive as to the 
claimant’s medical presentation and the claim.  This report is the most 
recent on file and found a sixty-two percent total body impairment that did 
not prevent the claimant from engaging in sustained remunerative 
employment.  The Commission finds this level of impairment to equate to 
permitting sedentary employment.  The Commission further finds that the 
claimant’s high school education and work history are indicative of being 
able to participate in vocational retraining.  Supportive of this conclusion is 
the May 31, 1991 report of the Walker Center which indicated that claimant 
has above average general learning ability and verbal ability.  As such, the 
Commission concurs that the claimant would be able to undertake retraining 
and utilize any acquired skills on a sustained basis.  This is so despite the 
conclusion reached by the Walker Center who felt that claimant’s failure to 
work in nine years made him a poor candidate.” 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in 
 
5
denying permanent total disability compensation.  The court of appeals 
denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court on appeal as of right. 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. 
Jaffy; Hahn & Swadey and Victor Hahn, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William McDonald, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
 
Weiner & Suit Co., L.P.A., and Thomas S. Amato, for appellee 
Refiners Transport and Terminal. 
 
Per Curiam.  Claimant seeks to compel a finding of permanent total 
disability compensation pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 
Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E. 2d 666.  For the reasons to follow, we uphold the 
commission’s order. 
 
The commission found that claimant’s high school education, work 
history and above-average learning and verbal skills favored the acquisition 
of new skills that could enhance claimant’s re-employment prospects.  
Based on the same data, however, the W.O. Walker Industrial Rehabilitation 
Center found claimant to be a poor rehabilitation candidate.  Claimant 
 
6
argues that the commission abused its discretion in accepting the findings, 
but not the conclusion, of its rehabilitation center. 
 
The commission may reject the conclusion of a rehabilitation report 
and draw its own conclusion from the same nonmedical information.  See 
State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 210, 616 
N.E. 2d 929.  “To bind the commission to a rehabilitation report’s 
conclusion makes the rehabilitation division, not the commission, the 
ultimate evaluator of disability, contrary to [State ex rel.] Stevenson [v. 
Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 31 OBR 369, 509 N.E. 2d 946].”  
State ex rel. Ellis v. McGraw Edison Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 92, 94, 609 
N.E. 2d 164, 165. 
 
The freedom to independently evaluate nonmedical factors is 
important because nonmedical factors are often subject to different 
interpretation.  We have already recognized this fact with regard to age and 
education.  As stated in Ellis: 
 
“The commission exercised its prerogative in concluding that, at age 
fifty-one, claimant was young, not old, and that his age was a help, not a 
hindrance.  So, too, is the conclusion with regard to claimant’s education, 
 
7
which also derives support from the record.  More so than claimant’s age, 
his education can be interpreted as either an asset or a liability.  While his 
grade school level spelling and below-average reading ability clearly can be 
perceived negatively, the same rehabilitation report that determined these 
academic skills to be a limitation nonetheless concluded that his high school 
education was an asset.  The commission was persuaded by the latter 
conclusion.”  Id. 94, 609 N.E.2d at 165-166. 
 
The same can be said in this case with regard to claimant’s work 
history.  Claimant worked for Refiners Transport and Terminal as a trucker 
for twenty-two years.  Claimant’s long tenure can be viewed negatively 
because it prevented the acquisition of a broader range of skills that more 
varied employment might have provided.  It also, however, suggests a 
stable, loyal and dependable employee worth making an investment in.  This 
is an asset and is an interpretation as valid as the first. 
 
Claimant’s lack of transferable skills also does not mandate a 
permanent total disability compensation award.  A permanent total disability 
compensation assessment examines both claimant’s current and future, i.e., 
potentially developable, abilities.  An absence of transferable skills is 
 
8
germane to this inquiry.  However, as the appellate court referee observed, 
“the nonexistence of transferable skills from relator’s truck driving 
experience would not be of critical importance when the issue becomes 
whether the claimant can be retrained for another occupation.” 
 
The commission did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in viewing 
claimant’s education, work history and skills favorably.  The commission’s 
explanation in this case is found to satisfy State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. 
(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E. 2d 245, negating claimant’s request for 
Gay relief.  State ex rel. Sebestyen v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 
36, 641 N.E. 2d 197. 
 
Claimant lastly argues that the commissioners’ internal voting sheet 
demonstrates that the commission “really” based its decision on medical 
evidence only, without considering claimant’s nonmedical background.  
This contention is unpersuasive.  The commission speaks through its orders, 
not internal memoranda.  State ex rel. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Indus. 
Comm. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 139, 642 N.E. 2d 378.  The commissioners 
signed and approved the permanent total disability compensation order, 
 
9
thereby ratifying the reasoning contained within it.  The order, therefore, 
represents the commission’s reasons for denial. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS AND RESNICK, JJ., dissent.