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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. BINEGAR, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET 
AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Binegar v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 470.] 
Workers’ compensation — Denial of permanent total disability compensation by 
Industrial Commission not an abuse of discretion, when — Industrial 
Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that claimant’s 
vocational and rehabilitation potential permitted him to secure alternate 
employment, when. 
(No. 95-1525 — Submitted December 3, 1997 — Decided December 31, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD06-794. 
 
Appellee-claimant, Chester Binegar, was injured on October 4, 1984 when 
overcome by fumes during the course of and arising from his employment with 
Cuyahoga Exploration and Development.  He was twenty-four years old at the 
time.  Appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio allowed his workers’ 
compensation claim for “natural gas exposure, seizure disorder, post-traumatic 
stress disorder, amnestic disorder.”  
 
Claimant apparently never worked after September 1986, although the 
reason for his departure from the work force is not clear.  In 1991, claimant moved 
for permanent total disability compensation.  Drs. Pliny A. Price and George W. 
Paulson stated that because claimant continued to experience unpredictable 
seizures, sometimes as frequently as three times a month, he was incapable of 
sustained remunerative employment.  Vocational consultant Dr. Anthony C. 
Riccio, Ph.D. also opined that claimant was permanently and totally disabled. 
 
Dr. Lee Howard examined claimant on behalf of the commission.  With 
regard to claimant’s allowed psychological conditions, Dr. Howard concluded: 
 
2
 
“The claimant is experiencing a 20% permanent partial impairment of a 
psychological/psychiatric nature directly related to the industrial accident.  He is 
permanently prohibited from performing his previous type of work activity as 
‘service rig handler’ but is really not prohibited from any other type of sustained 
remunerative employment from a psychological/psychiatric standpoint.  He is also 
not prohibited from participation in rehabilitation services, although motivation 
for change appears to be quite questionable.”  
 
Dr. John T. Kissel evaluated claimant’s neurological condition.  Dr. Kissel 
wrote: 
 
“On the basis of the findings today, I think the following conclusions are 
valid: 1) the claimant is not capable of returning to his prior job.  Because of the 
seizure disorder, he will never be able to return to his prior job, 2) the claimant’s 
seizure disorder appears to be the most significant work prohibitive factor.  He is 
presently undergoing further evaluation of treatment which should result in better 
seizure control.  From this perspective, therefore[,] he appears capable of many 
types of sedentary, light or even medium activity.  The usual procedures [and] 
precautions (not work[ing] around heights, dangerous machinery, open water, etc.) 
would apply, 3) his percentage of residual neurologic[al] impairment, on the basis 
of the findings today, would be approximately 30%.  This would include the 22% 
allowance for his seizure disorder and 5% allowance for the headache.  Combined 
with Dr. Howard’s 20% impairment, this would yield a combined effects 
impairment of 44%, 4) a vocational rehabilitation program would not appear 
appropriate for new job training.  Rehabilitation per say [sic] would not appear to 
be cost effective since his principal problem is seizures.” 
 
Dr. Walter A. Holbrook performed a combined-effects review.  He assessed 
a fifty-five-percent combined permanent partial impairment that precluded 
 
3
claimant’s return to his former position of employment.  He did not, however, find 
that claimant was removed from all gainful employment.  Dr. Holbrook stated: 
 
“[I]t is not within reasonable medical probability and certainty to conclude 
that the combined effects of the allowed conditions would preclude claimant from 
performing some other sustained and gainful employment.  Claimant is not 
permanently totally impaired from the combined effects of the allowed conditions 
of the industrial accident. 
 
“It is within reasonable medical probability and certainty to conclude after 
reviewing the medical proof in the [file] that claimant does not have any exertional 
limitations[,] but he does have seizure restrictions where he should not be 
involved in any hazardous occupations of working in high altitudes, scaffolds, 
climbing ladders or in dangerous places or operation of dangerous or hazardous 
equipment.  He should be involved in occupations not requiring deadlines or strict 
quotas. 
 
“The claimant could possibly benefit from [some] type of rehabilitation.” 
 
Claimant’s application for permanent total disability compensation was 
heard on December 15, 1992 by a deputy of the commission, who issued the 
following interlocutory order: 
 
“FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION 
 
“INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 
 
“* * * 
 
“It is the finding of the Commission that the claimant is permanently and 
totally disabled; that the compensation for such disability be awarded from 
12/16/92 TO 3/28/93; further payment of compensation to be considered at the 
next scheduled hearing on the issue of continuation of permanent and total 
disability; that the Application be granted to the extent of this order * * *. 
 
4
 
“Claim files to be referred to Claims Management-Special Projects, then to 
the Attorney Unit for preparation of a statement of facts to be completed within 43 
days from the date of publication of this order and then set for hearing before the 
members of the Industrial Commission on the issue of continuation of the award of 
permanent and total disability compensation. 
 
“The reports of Doctor(s) PAULSON, PIEES [sic PRICE], HOLBROOK, 
KISSEL & HOWARD were reviewed and evaluated.  This order is based 
particularly upon the report(s) of Dr[s]. HOLBROOK, PAULSON.  A 
consideration of the claimant’s age of 32, 12th grade education, a work history 
which included Laborer & [sic], the evidence in the file and the evidence adduced 
at the hearing. * * * 
 
“CLOSED AWARD.” 
 
On April 6, 1993, the commission denied further permanent total disability 
compensation, writing: 
 
“This order is based particularly upon the reports of Drs. Howard, Kissel & 
Holbrook, the evidence in the file and the evidence adduced at the hearing. 
 
“* * * 
 
“Claimant is 32 years old, has a high school education, and work experience 
as a laborer, machine operator, and oil field worker.  Claimant was injured on 10-
4-84 and last worked on 9-7-86 at which time claimant was 26 years old.  
Claimant’s treatment has been entirely conservative.  The medical evidence found 
persuasive includes the reports of Drs. Howard, Kissel, and Holbrook.  Dr. 
Howard, commission psychologist, examined claimant on 11-18-91.  From the 
examination, Dr. Howard concluded that claimant demonstrated a 20% 
psychological impairment that precludes a return to claimant’s former position of 
employment but does not preclude any other sustained remunerative employment.  
 
5
Dr. Kissel, commission neurologist, examined claimant on 11-18-91.  Dr. Kissel 
stated that the neurological condition represents a 30% impairment and does not 
preclude sedentary, light or medium work activity.  Dr. Holbrook, staff physician, 
rendered a claim file review on 12-29-91.  From the review, Dr. Holbrook 
concluded that claimant demonstrates a total combined effects impairment of 55%.  
Further, Dr. Holbrook stated that claimant is not permanently and totally impaired 
from all sustained remunerative employment.  Dr. Holbrook did state, however, 
that claimant cannot be involved in any hazardous occupation.  Based upon the 
medical evidence, the commission finds that the allowed conditions do not render 
claimant permanently and totally disabled, but rather, allow claimant to perform 
sedentary, light or possibly medium work activity.  As claimant is extremely 
young and does possess a high school education, the commission finds that 
claimant has [the] vocational and rehabilitation potential to obtain employment 
consistent with the allowed conditions recognized herein.  Accordingly, claimant’s 
application for permanent total disability is denied.” 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
him further permanent total disability compensation.  The court of appeals agreed, 
finding that the commission was bound by the earlier finding of permanent total 
disability. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel D. Connor Co., L.P.A., and Daniel D. Connor, for appellee. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William A. Thorman III, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellants. 
__________________ 
 
6
 
Per Curiam.  The court of appeals’ decision preceded our decision in State 
ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929, 
wherein we held that the commission was not required to extend permanent total 
disability compensation beyond the date specified in an interlocutory order.  The 
commission did not, therefore, in the case before us, abuse its discretion in 
refusing to continue permanent total disability compensation. 
 
The commission further argues that its order is supported by “some 
evidence.”  We agree.  Medically, all of the doctors on which the commission 
relied found claimant was able to do sustained remunerative work.  The only 
restriction placed upon claimant by those doctors was that he avoid hazardous 
work machinery and environments.  Dr. Kissel found that claimant could do up to 
medium-duty work, while Dr. Holbrook found no exertional limitations at all.  
Likewise, Dr. Howard opined that claimant’s allowed psychiatric condition did not 
prohibit him from any type of sustained remunerative employment outside of his 
former job. 
 
Claimant’s contention that the aforementioned conclusions were based on a 
misunderstanding of the severity of his allowed conditions is unpersuasive.  It was 
the doctors’ awareness of continued seizures as well as their unpredictability that 
assuredly generated the recommendation that claimant not work in environments 
where his safety would be jeopardized by sudden seizure activity.  We also reject 
claimant’s suggestion that the commission abused its discretion in accepting these 
reports over other available medical evidence.  As we have repeatedly stated, the 
commission alone evaluates the weight and credibility of the evidence before it.  
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 
508 N.E.2d 936. 
 
7
 
In evaluating claimant’s nonmedical disability factors, the commission 
stressed that claimant was only thirty-two years old, which it viewed as “extremely 
young” from an occupational perspective.  The commission also noted that 
claimant had successfully completed high school.  These two factors convinced 
the commission that claimant was amenable to retraining and reemployment into 
jobs consistent with his medical capabilities.  The commission did not, therefore, 
abuse its discretion in finding that claimant’s vocational and rehabilitation 
potential permitted him to secure alternate employment. 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents.