Title: State ex rel. Carter v. Penske Truck Leasing, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Carter v. Penske Truck Leasing, Inc. , 94 Ohio St.3d 208, 2002-Ohio-476.] 
 
 
STATE EX REL. CARTER, APPELLANT, v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, INC. ET AL. 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Carter v. Penske Truck Leasing, Inc. (2002), 94 Ohio 
St.3d 208.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s denial of application to 
reconsider its orders terminating applicant’s temporary total disability 
compensation affirmed, when. 
(No. 01-649 — Submitted January 9, 2002 — Decided February 6, 2002.) 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-512. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant-claimant Sammie L. Carter received temporary 
total disability compensation (“TTC”) following a 1989 work-related shoulder 
injury.  On July 14, 1995, his continued entitlement to these benefits was disputed 
before a district hearing officer (“DHO”) for appellee Industrial Commission of 
Ohio.  Two medical reports were presented.  Dr. William Reynolds stated that 
claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”).  Dr. Charles B. 
May disagreed.  Based on Dr. Reynolds’s report, the DHO terminated TTC.  That 
order was administratively affirmed. 
 
On January 5, 1998, claimant had shoulder surgery related to his allowed 
conditions.  Seeking reinstatement of TTC during the recovery period, claimant 
submitted Dr. Timothy P. Duffey’s report.  Based on that report, TTC from 
January 5, 1998, forward was granted. 
 
In his report, Dr. Duffey stated that he agreed with Dr. May’s 1995 
opinion that claimant had not attained MMI.  This prompted claimant to ask the 
commission to reconsider its 1995 orders terminating TTC and to pay TTC for the 
three-year period between termination and reinstatement.  The commission denied 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the request because it did not satisfy Industrial Commission Resolution No. R98-
1-3. 
 
Claimant sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
originally terminating TTC and in refusing to revisit that decision.  The court of 
appeals disagreed, finding no abuse of discretion. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
Claimant seeks TTC from February 22, 1995 through January 5, 1998.  
For the reasons to follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and deny 
that request. 
 
While the commission’s order denying reconsideration was vague, the 
parties do not dispute that the denial was premised on a finding of untimeliness.  
Claimant responds that the resolution cited in the commission’s order did not 
apply to claimant’s motion filed before the effective date of the resolution, and the 
commission concedes that point.  The commission, however, correctly notes that 
the resolution that did apply varied little from its successor—reconsideration 
under the applicable earlier resolution had to be sought within twenty-one days 
from receipt of the disputed order rather than the later fourteen—and was not 
satisfied by claimant’s two-and-one-half-year delay in seeking reconsideration.  
This supports the commission’s assertion that any order to the commission to 
further consider appellant’s claim would be a vain act, since the same result 
would be inevitable.  See State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 210, 616 N.E.2d 929. 
 
Claimant’s attack on the 1995 termination order is equally unpersuasive.  
Claimant’s assertion that key evidence was ignored is not supported by review.  
The order did not unnecessarily enumerate the evidence considered.  It specified 
only the evidence on which the order was based.  Consideration of all evidence 
January Term, 2002 
3 
presented is, therefore, assumed.  State ex rel. Lovell v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 74 
Ohio St.3d 250, 658 N.E.2d 284. 
 
Accordingly, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd., and James R. Cooper, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Thomas L. Reitz, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
__________________