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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. PETRONIO, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET 
AL. APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Petronio v. Indus. Comm. (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Conflicting reports by claimant’s physician concerning 
claimant’s temporary total disability — Conflicting reports later explained 
by physician — Industrial Commission abuses its discretion in rejecting the 
explanation for the conflicting reports and terminating claimant’s 
temporary total disability benefits. 
(No. 97-1020 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided February 10, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD10-1328. 
__________________ 
 
Shapiro, Kendis & Associates and Rachel B. Jaffy, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cordelia A. Glenn, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Thomas Petronio, appellant, injured his back on the job in 
1991, and his workers’ compensation claim was allowed for “contusion/sprain low 
back.”  Petronio qualified for temporary total disability compensation (“TTD”) as 
of January 13, 1992, apparently with payments to continue based on 
supplementary medical evidence.  Robert C. Muehrcke, M.D., his attending 
physician, documented Petronio’s continued temporary total disability with a 
series of medical reports; however, some of his reports represented that Petronio’s 
condition had become permanent and others suggested that other nonallowed 
conditions had caused his disability.  Dr. Muehrcke later explained his conflicting 
reports, but appellee Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) had 
already cut off Petronio’s TTD and assessed an overpayment.  Today we must 
 
2
decide whether appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio had authority to reject Dr. 
Muehrcke’s explanation in administratively affirming the BWC’s decision. 
 
The Court of Appeals for Franklin County denied Petronio’s request for a 
writ of mandamus, ordering the commission (1) to vacate its order retroactively 
terminating TTD as of December 2, 1992, the first date on which Dr. Muehrcke 
referred to Petronio’s condition as “permanent,” and assessing an overpayment, 
and (2) to reinstate his continuing TTD.  The court of appeals found that the 
commission, as the exclusive evaluator of evidence, was free to reject Dr. 
Muehrcke’s explanation for his conflicting reports.  But in this appeal as of right, 
Petronio claims that the commission was required to credit Dr. Muehrcke’s 
explanation under the rule in State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp. (1994), 70 
Ohio St.3d 649, 640 N.E.2d 815.  We agree and, accordingly, reverse. 
 
Like Dr. Muehrcke, the doctor in Eberhardt initially supplied information 
that suggested that the claimant’s condition might have reached maximum medical 
improvement, or permanency; however, the doctor later clarified that the claimant 
might improve by participating in a rehabilitation program.  We found that the 
doctor’s reports, when taken together, proved that he had always considered the 
claimant’s condition temporary.  Thus, we held: 
 
“Where a physician renders an ambiguous opinion regarding a claimant’s 
medical condition but thereafter clarifies the ambiguity, the Industrial Commission 
may not revive the ambiguity as a basis for rejecting the physician’s opinion.”  
Eberhardt at paragraph two of the syllabus. 
 
No one disputes that Dr. Muehrcke explained in his last report to the 
commission that Petronio’s condition was temporary, total, and the result of his 
injury at work.  The Eberhardt rule required the commission to accept that 
explanation notwithstanding its authority to determine credibility.  No other 
 
3
evidence of record established that Petronio’s condition had become permanent or 
reached maximum medical improvement.  Thus, we can only conclude that the 
commission abused its discretion in terminating Petronio’s TTD and in declaring 
an overpayment. 
 
Accordingly, the court of appeals judgment is reversed, and a writ of 
mandamus is granted.  The commission is ordered to vacate its order terminating 
Petronio’s TTD and assessing an overpayment.  The commission is further ordered 
to continue Petronio’s TTD consistent with Dr. Muehrcke’s medical opinion. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent and would 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.