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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

The State ex rel. Shields, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., 
1 
Appellees. 
2 
[Cite as State ex rel. Shields v. Indus. Comm. (1996), _____ Ohio St. 3d 
3 
_____.] 
4 
Workers’ compensation -- Application for permanent total disability 
5 
compensation -- Industrial Commission does not abuse its discretion 
6 
in denying compensation when order adequately sets forth the 
7 
reasoning the commission used to reach its decision. 
8 
 
(No. 94-1179--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided January 10, 
9 
1996.) 
10 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 
11 
93APD03-427. 
12 
 
13 
 
Appellant-claimant, Donald E. Shields, suffered several injuries in the 
14 
course of and arising from his employment with appellee Central Soya 
15 
Company, and his workers’ compensation claims were allowed.  In 1992, 
16 
claimant’s application for permanent total disability compensation 
17 
culminated in a return of the cause to the appellee Industrial Commission of 
18 
 
2
Ohio for further consideration pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. 
1 
(1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 203, 567 N. E. 2d 245. 
2 
 
At the rehearing, five reports were relevant.  Commission physicians 
3 
Drs. John H. Vetter and William Reynolds assessed claimant’s permanent 
4 
partial impairment at twenty-nine percent and fifty percent, respectively.  
5 
Both doctors prohibited claimant from returning to his former job, but felt 
6 
that claimant could do sedentary to light work.  Both recommended 
7 
rehabilitation, although Reynolds cautioned that it was “doubtful that he 
8 
[claimant] is motivated to return to any type of work.” 
9 
 
Claimant submitted three reports.  Dr. Stephen Chrisman attributed 
10 
claimant’s alleged inability to work to “[p]ossible ruptured disc, lumbar 
11 
radiolapathy [sic], degenerative arthritis and disc disease.  Obesity.”  Of 
12 
these conditions, only lumbar radiculopathy has been allowed. 
13 
 
Dr. Lawrence A. Pabst extensively discussed claimant’s lumbar 
14 
degenerative joint disease, degenerative disc disease and L4-5 bulging--all 
15 
nonallowed conditions.  He also observed: 
16 
 
“I also note a vocational evaluation report which I think is most 
17 
important to denote.  Particularly noting his education level, that of being 
18 
 
3
high school, [with a] lower level of performance testing.  Also his physical 
1 
capacity performance, particularly noting his decreased manual dexterity, 
2 
limited overhead arm use, impression as far as his ability to complete formal 
3 
training, lack of carry over skills from his prior employment, and his 
4 
assessed prognosis.” 
5 
 
He further noted: 
6 
 
“With regard to his [claimant’s] status and potential treatment, I think 
7 
it is evident that he is at the end of the line and has reached maximum 
8 
medical improvement.  He evidently is not felt to be a surgical candidate.  It 
9 
is obvious from his unrelated factors, such as obesity, certainly the risks 
10 
would be high.  From his physical exam status with the absence of 
11 
radiculopathy, certainly [the] success rate is poor potentially with regard to 
12 
disc disease only.  With the described response to his prior treatment, 
13 
particularly in his exercise programming, etc., and considering the findings 
14 
on his vocational evaluation, he would not be [a] rehabilitation candidate. 
15 
 
“Regarding his extent of disability, strictly speaking, from an 
16 
objective standpoint only referable to the above findings, according to the 
17 
AMA guidelines 3rd edition, his combined percentage of permanent partial 
18 
 
4
impairment, I would have to admit would only be rated 25% [of the] whole 
1 
body.  There are obviously other factors to consider in his assessment 
2 
however as discussed and documented above.  Subjectively, claimant feels 
3 
he is totally disabled.  From his functional evaluation which appears 
4 
complete and well done, patient’s physical capacities would be limited to a 
5 
sedentary or possibly semi-sedentary level. *** 
6 
 
“I think it is clear from the vocational evaluation and I would agree 
7 
with the assessment on that evaluation from his exam to date that he, for all 
8 
practical purposes considering his educational level and testing, and all 
9 
other factors noted, would not really be considered a candidate for any kind 
10 
of training program of this nature.  I would also question his ability to 
11 
sustain engagement in this type of job activity if this was even available.  I 
12 
think that the prognosis for this would be poor as well as even finding a 
13 
position such as this in all reality and probability, even if we assume he 
14 
could achieve this level of performance and retraining.  In view of this it is 
15 
clear that he would be unable at this time or in the future to return to his 
16 
prior occupation.  Overall, considering all the factors, I think that the 
17 
 
5
potential for his employability is basically nil.  I think the bottom line is that 
1 
he is totally and permanently disabled [sic].” 
2 
 
Claimant’s third report was that of a vocational consultant, Carl W. 
3 
Hartung, who reported: 
4 
 
“Overall, Mr. Shields demonstrated below average ability to perform 
5 
in the academic areas and physical capacities and in the average range of 
6 
reasoning development.  He is probably not capable of returning to his 
7 
previous position of milling operator and he would have a difficult time of 
8 
successfully completing a formal training program. 
9 
 
“His previous employment was in the semi-skilled area of specific 
10 
vocational preparation and the knowledge he gained from 20+ years of his 
11 
employment will have very limited usefulness in transferring to a new 
12 
position. 
13 
 
“He may be able to perform jobs in the sedentary level of physical 
14 
demands if he could find employment that would allow him to alternate his 
15 
standing and sitting positions frequently.  But, when his current abilities, 
16 
physical limitations, transferable skills, and academic levels are combined 
17 
 
6
with the geographical availability of employment for sedentary semi-skilled 
1 
positions prognosis for his returning to work is very guarded.” 
2 
 
The commission denied permanent total disability compensation, 
3 
writing: 
4 
 
“The reports of Doctor(s) Chrisman, Reynolds and Vetter were 
5 
reviewed and evaluated.  The order is based upon the reports of Doctor(s) 
6 
Vetter, evidence in the file and/or evidence adduced at the hearing. 
7 
 
“The claimant is 47 years old and has a high school education.  
8 
Commission specialists Drs. Vetter and Reynolds have indicated that the 
9 
claimant is capable of performing sedentary to light work.  Dr. Reynolds 
10 
indicated that the claimant is in need of a general rehabilitation conditioning 
11 
program and both doctors recommend vocational rehabilitation.  Based 
12 
upon the claimant’s relatively young age, education and the 
13 
recommendations of Drs. Vetter and Reynolds, it is found that the claimant 
14 
should be able to return to some form of sustained remunerative 
15 
employment following participation in a comprehensive physical and 
16 
vocational rehabilitation program.  Therefore, the claimant is not 
17 
 
7
permanently precluded from engaging in any type of sustained remunerative 
1 
employment.” 
2 
 
Claimant brought a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
3 
for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in 
4 
denying permanent total disability compensation.  The court disagreed and 
5 
denied the writ. 
6 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
7 
 
8 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. 
9 
Jaffy; and Kevin P. Collins, for appellant. 
10 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, 
11 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
12 
 
Vorys Sater, Seymour & Pease, Robert A. Minor and Randall W. 
13 
Mikes, for appellee Central Soya Company. 
14 
 
15 
 
Per Curiam.  Claimant supplied the commission with two doctors’ 
16 
reports.  Serious flaws in both reports, however, dictate their removal from 
17 
evidentiary consideration.  Both Drs. Chrisman and Pabst rely heavily on 
18 
 
8
nonallowed medical conditions.  Pabst further factors in nonmedical data.  
1 
State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 452, 619 N. E. 
2 
2d 1018, and State ex rel. Lopez v. Indus. Comm.(1994), 69 Ohio St. 3d 445, 
3 
633 N. E. 2d 528, compel the removal of these reports from consideration. 
4 
 
Removal of the Chrisman and Pabst reports leaves only the Vetter and 
5 
Reynolds reports, on which the commission currently relies.  Both Drs. 
6 
Vetter and Reynolds found claimant capable of sedentary to light work.  
7 
Claimant’s application, therefore, hinges on the commission’s interpretation 
8 
of claimant’s nonmedical factors. 
9 
 
The Hartung vocational report discussed these factors, but was, from 
10 
the face of the order, overlooked by the commission.  Such omission would 
11 
typically compel a return for further consideration pursuant to State ex rel. 
12 
Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St. 3d 327, 631 N. E. 2d 1057.  This 
13 
case, however, provides an exception to that general rule. 
14 
 
Fultz was motivated by the concern that, had the commission been 
15 
aware of the omitted evidence, it may have reached a different conclusion.  
16 
That purpose, however, cannot be furthered where the evidence is incapable 
17 
 
9
of supporting a result contrary to that already reached by the commission, 
1 
which is what we find here. 
2 
 
Hartung conceded that claimant’s nonmedical factors would not 
3 
preclude retraining in some types of sedentary work.  Hartung limited those 
4 
sedentary jobs to ones which would permit claimant to alternately sit and 
5 
stand.  Claimant argues that this limitation is tantamount to permanent total 
6 
disability compensation, since sedentary employment would confine 
7 
claimant to a sitting position for eight hours. 
8 
 
Claimant ignores that the only medical evidence that imposed 
9 
sitting/standing restrictions were the Chrisman and Pabst reports.  These 
10 
reports, however, relied on nonallowed conditions and were properly 
11 
discounted by the commission.  Similarly, Hartung’s observations of 
12 
claimant’s positional discomfort during the evaluation are insufficient to 
13 
substantiate these restrictions, since Hartung is not a medical doctor and is 
14 
not qualified to attribute claimant’s discomfort to the allowed conditions. 
15 
 
Removing these restrictions leaves Hartung’s report with only one 
16 
conclusion that can withstand review--that claimant’s nonmedical profile is 
17 
consistent with retraining into sedentary work.  Because sedentary work was 
18 
 
10
recommended by Drs. Vetter and Reynolds, Hartung’s report effectively 
1 
supports the commission’s decision.  A “remand”--which would only serve 
2 
to validate the commission’s decision further--is, therefore, unnecessary. 
3 
 
Turning to the question of Noll sufficiency, we find that the order 
4 
fulfills our directives in that case.  In State ex rel Ellis v. McGraw Edison 
5 
Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 92, 609 N. E. 2d 164, we upheld a permanent 
6 
total disability compensation denial order that was similar to that now at 
7 
issue.  In Ellis, the commission wrote: 
8 
 
“‘The objective findings contained in the report of Dr. Hutchison 
9 
reflect claimant is capable of sustained remunerative activity at the light 
10 
level.  His relatively young age and education reflects [sic] he retains the 
11 
transferable skills to engage in light job duties.’”  Id. at 93, 609 N.E. 2d at 
12 
165. 
13 
 
In affirming the commission, we reasoned: 
14 
 
“The commission exercised its prerogative including that, at age fifty-
15 
one, claimant was young, not old, and that his age was a help, not a 
16 
hindrance.  So, too, the conclusion with regard to claimant’s education, 
17 
which also derives support from the record.  More so than claimant’s age, 
18 
 
11
his education can be interpreted as either an asset or a liability.  While his 
1 
grade school level spelling and below-average reading ability clearly can be 
2 
perceived negatively, the same rehabilitation report that determined these 
3 
academic skills to be a limitation nonetheless concluded that his high school 
4 
education was an asset.  The commission was persuaded by the latter 
5 
conclusion.” Id. at 94, 609 N.E. 2d at 165-166. 
6 
 
So, too, in State ex rel. Hart v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 
7 
95, 609 N. E. 2d 166.  There, the commission stated: 
8 
 
“‘Claimant is 39 years old, his G.E.D. is an assests [sic] in claimant’s 
9 
retraining and/or returning to work.  Claimant has a work history as a truck 
10 
driver, however Industrial Commission examiner Dr. Baldoni stated 
11 
claimant could engage in sedentary work.’”  Id. at 96, 609 N.E. 2d at 167. 
12 
 
Again, we wrote: 
13 
 
“*** The present commission decision was based on a combination 
14 
of medical and nonmedical factors--Dr. Baldoni’s conclusion that claimant 
15 
could do sedentary work, as well as claimant’s youth and education.  These 
16 
factors provide ‘some evidence’ supporting the denial of permanent total 
17 
disability compensation.”  Id. at 96, 609 N.E. 2d at 167. 
18 
 
12
 
The present commission order notes that claimant’s age and education 
1 
were deemed to be vocational assets.  Along with the cited rehabilitation 
2 
recommendations of Drs. Reynolds and Vetter, the order adequately sets 
3 
forth the reasoning that the commission used to deny permanent total 
4 
disability compensation. 
5 
 
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
6 
Judgment affirmed. 
7 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
8 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
9 
 
10