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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Poneris v. Indus. Comm., 111 Ohio St.3d 264, 2006-Ohio-5702.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. PONERIS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Poneris v. Indus. Comm., 
 111 Ohio St.3d 264, 2006-Ohio-5702.] 
Workers’ compensation – Permanent and total disability compensation – Denial 
of application to reset compensation start date – No abuse of discretion. 
(No. 2006-0052 — Submitted October 4, 2006 — Decided November 15, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 05AP-111, 2005-Ohio-6208. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We are asked to determine whether appellee, Industrial 
Commission of Ohio, abused its discretion in refusing to start the payment of 
appellant Eleftherios Poneris’s permanent total disability compensation as of June 
9, 2001.  We find no abuse of discretion. 
{¶ 2} Poneris first applied for permanent total disability compensation on 
November 6, 2000.  That application was denied on May 19, 2001.  Two years 
later, several back conditions were additionally allowed in Poneris’s claim.  
Poneris then filed a new application for permanent total disability compensation 
on June 9, 2003, that was supported by the May 15, 2003 report of Dr. Martin 
McTighe. 
{¶ 3} The commission granted that motion on January 27, 2004, and 
backdated the commencement of permanent total disability compensation to May 
15, 2003, based on Dr. McTighe’s report.  The commission specifically rejected 
Poneris’s request to begin compensation as of June 9, 2001, finding that the July 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
31, 2001 report of Dr. John Roberts – on which Poneris had relied – did not 
specifically indicate that Poneris was permanently and totally disabled. 
{¶ 4} Approximately five months later, Poneris filed a motion asking 
that his permanent total disability start date be reset to June 9, 2001.  Poneris 
relied on a new report from Dr. Roberts dated June 25, 2004, that stated: 
{¶ 5} “I have reviewed the medical records in regard to the above 
claimant.  It is apparent that his back injury occurred in July, 1995.  Surgery was 
performed by Dr. Richard Weimann in 1998.  He [claimant] informed me that his 
temporary total disability payments stopped as of July, 1999, or approximately 
one year following the surgery performed by Dr. Weimann.  Now that this 
individual is permanently and totally disabled it is my opinion that the starting 
date for that level of disability should correctly be listed as July, 1999.  I offer this 
opinion within reasonable medical probability.” 
{¶ 6} The commission denied the motion after concluding that (1) the 
issue was res judicata and (2) Dr. Roberts gave “no basis for his opinion that 
permanent total disability should start as of July, 1999.”  Poneris then filed a 
complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, asserting 
that the commission had abused its discretion in refusing to further backdate the 
commencement of permanent total disability compensation.  Affirming the 
commission’s reasoning, the court of appeals denied the writ. 
{¶ 7} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 8} Once the commission’s January 27, 2004 order had become final, 
it could be reopened only through the commission’s exercise of continuing 
jurisdiction.  That, in turn, could occur only if one of five prerequisites had been 
met:  (1) new and changed circumstances, (2) fraud, (3) clear mistake of fact, (4) 
clear mistake of law, or (5) error by an inferior tribunal.  State ex rel. Nicholls v. 
Indus. Comm. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 454, 692 N.E.2d 188. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 9} None of these prerequisites is present in the case before us.  The 
submission of Dr. Roberts’s June 25, 2004 report may have been new evidence, 
but it did not constitute new and changed circumstances.  State ex rel. Keith v. 
Indus. Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 139, 580 N.E.2d 433. 
{¶ 10} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would reverse the decision of the court of appeals 
and start the permanent total disability compensation as of June 9, 2001. 
__________________ 
 
Harris & Burgin, L.P.A., and Jeffrey W. Harris, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________