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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. SHARON, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Sharon v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s order denying permanent 
total disability compensation an abuse of discretion when rehabilitation 
evidence not considered. 
(No. 95-2036 — Submitted May 12, 1998 — Decided July 8, 1998.) 
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 
94APD07-1072. 
 
Claimant Clifford Sharon, appellant and cross-appellee, sustained two 
industrial injuries; the most serious occurred in 1986.  His workers’ compensation 
claim was allowed for back and psychiatric conditions.  In 1992, he moved 
appellee and cross-appellant, Industrial Commission of Ohio, for permanent total 
disability compensation (“PTD”).  Among the evidence before the commission 
were reports from the commission’s rehabilitation division written in 1988.  
Claimant’s vocational assets and limitations were listed as follows: 
 
“Assets: 
 
“1.  Mr. Sharon revealed good use of hand tools. 
 
“2.  Good visual discrimination skills as it [sic] relates to quality control. 
 
“3.  Revealed aptitude for small engine repair. 
 
“4. Revealed aptitude and strong interest for household and industrial 
wiring. 
 
“Limitations: 
 
“1.  Mr. Sharon has a 6th grade education. 
 
“2.  Reading and spelling levels below the 3rd grade. 
 
“3.  Math skills at the 4th grade level. 
 
2
 
“4.  Poor clerical perception. 
 
“5.  Receptive language age equivalency at 11 years, 10 months.” 
 
As to claimant’s academic achievement, the division reported: 
 
“The Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-R) assesses an individual’s 
ability to learn basic to complex reading, spelling, and arithmetic skills.  In 
addition, percentile scores and grade level equivalents may be obtained and can be 
compared to the achievement levels of individuals ranging from kindergarten age 
through adulthood.  Mr. Sharon scored in the 1st percentile for reading with a 
grade equivalent of below the 3rd; spelling percentile of 1 with a grade equivalent 
of below the 3rd; and for arithmetic a percentile score of 1 with a grade equivalent 
of 4.” 
 
In 1993, claimant’s rehabilitation file was closed as follows: 
 
“[T]his 48 year old claimant has a 6th grade education, is illiterate, has 
previously demonstrated decreased motivation to return to work, presents somatic 
over concern/preoccupation, low energy and has a possible previous substance 
abuse history.  Dr. Robert Turton, psychiatrist, notes in his March 9, 1993 
examination and report that Mr. Sharon is a poor candidate for rehabilitation. 
 
“Mr. Sharon is clearly not feasible for BWC Rehabilitation Division 
services.  His numerous deficits, combined, result in a very poor prognosis for 
rehabilitation to return to work.” 
 
The commission ultimately denied PTD.  Omitted, however, from the list of 
evidence considered by the commission were the reports from the rehabilitation 
division. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
him PTD.  The court of appeals returned the cause for further consideration and 
 
3
amended order after determining that the commission had not considered the 
rehabilitation evidence. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal and cross-appeal as of 
right. 
__________________ 
 
Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A., Gary D. Plunkett and Theresa M. Muhic, for 
appellant and cross-appellee. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Steven P. Fixler, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee and cross-appellant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On authority of State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 
Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I do not believe that the reports from 
the commission’s rehabilitation division would be capable of supporting a result 
contrary to that already reached by the commission; therefore, I would reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  State ex rel. Shields v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 74 
Ohio St.3d 264, 658 N.E.2d 296. 
 
The medical reports do not limit this claimant to sedentary work — a 
limitation that often requires the acquisition of new skills.  The commission 
determined that the claimant could engage in lighter work duties with lifting up to 
thirty-five pounds.  The commission made reference to the claimant’s past work 
history as a trucker and tow motor operator as types of jobs still within the 
 
4
claimant’s physical abilities, indicating that there are jobs for the claimant within 
his current intellectual and vocational levels of functioning.  Because his 
reemployment does not hinge on the learning of new skills, it was not crucial that 
the commission consider evidence relevant to the claimant’s future ability to learn 
or retrain. 
 
Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.