[Cite as State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 133 Ohio St.3d 244, 2012-Ohio-4637.] 

THE STATE EX REL. GUTHRIE, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL 

COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 

133 Ohio St.3d 244, 2012-Ohio-4637.] 

Workers’ compensation—Permanent total disability—Commission did not abuse 

discretion in denying benefits for permanent total disability—Claimant 

capable of sustained remunerative employment—Vocational factors 

properly taken into consideration—Fact that claimant’s best efforts at 

rehabilitation did not lead to job is irrelevant to eligibility for benefits. 

(No. 2011-0432—Submitted August 21, 2012—Decided October 10, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 10AP-171, 2011-Ohio-833. 

___________________

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Pamela Guthrie, filed an application for permanent total 

disability (“PTD”). The Industrial Commission of Ohio, appellee, found that 

Guthrie was capable of sedentary sustained remunerative employment and denied 

her request for PTD. Guthrie filed a complaint in mandamus in the Franklin 

County Court of Appeals, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion. 

The court of appeals denied Guthrie’s mandamus action. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm. 

FACTS

{¶ 2} Guthrie has several work-related knee conditions that have left her 

with a 20 percent permanent partial disability. These conditions were enough to 

keep her from returning to her former position of employment as a nurse’s aide. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

She began receiving temporary total disability compensation in 2004 and has 

never worked again. 

{¶ 3} Guthrie was in her mid-40s when she stopped working. She is a 

high school graduate, and as part of an Industrial Commission vocational 

rehabilitation program, she completed a four-year graphic-arts program. Despite 

her involvement in rehabilitation on at least two occasions, she never secured 

employment. Rehabilitation efforts ceased in 2009, and the closure report that 

followed reflected on Guthrie’s participation: 

She would not attend Networking Group but met with her 

[employment services specialist] weekly, and [in] her last report 

period she agreed to meet twice each week. Pam is reluctant to 

change routines and habits even when they are unproductive or 

counterproductive. She tended to contact many employers 

regarding jobs for which she is not qualified. Her training and 

experience is limited, and there are limited jobs she can perform 

partially because of her physical limitations. She discards many 

suggestions and harbors many self-defeating attitudes. However, 

her strong will and determination also work for her at times. She 

was highly motivated in her search and did everything required of 

her. During her last Staffing, she was informed by her team that 

she would need to alter her approach, try different things, invest 

more time in her search, and broaden job considerations and 

possibilities. Her case was closed by BWC on 1-30-09. * * * 

 * * * 

 Pamela’s job development program will not be extended 

past 2/1/09. The team encouraged Pamela to apply to positions 

that will help her obtain some recent work experience, rather than 
January Term, 2012 

3 

search for a “perfect” job and to search for a sedentary position 

that will accommodate her physical limitations. Pamela reported 

that this is “frustrating” but she realizes that this is the “reality” of 

the situation. 

{¶ 4} In 2009, Guthrie applied for PTD. The Industrial Commission of 

Ohio, through a staff hearing officer (“SHO”), finding that Guthrie was medically 

and vocationally capable of sedentary sustained remunerative employment, 

denied PTD. Guthrie does not dispute that from a medical standpoint, she is 

capable of sedentary employment, but contends that the commission abused its 

discretion by dismissing or discounting relevant vocational factors. 

{¶ 5} Discussing Guthrie’s vocational profile, the hearing officer wrote: 

[T]he Injured Worker has a pre-existing condition that impacts 

upon some employment opportunities. She has severe hearing 

loss. However, the Injured Worker can read lips. The record 

reflects that the Injured Worker was involved in a rehabilitation for 

job search [sic]. She was not able to find employment. They 

closed her file. After the closure of the file, the Injured Worker 

stopped looking for employment even though rehabilitation had 

recommended that she continue to look for employment. A review 

of the rehabilitation file indicates that they recommended to the 

Injured Worker to contact State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational 

Rehabilitation for further services as this agency helped her with 

training in the past. 

 The Staff Hearing Officer finds that the Injured Worker has 

the ability to secure employment notwithstanding her pre-existing 

condition. * * * The Injured Worker has also had some computer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

training in order to enhance her ability to secure employment. The 

Staff hearing officer acknowledges that the Injured Worker’s 

ability to secure employment is difficult but it is because of the job 

market. Her disability factors are not of such magnitude that 

would warrant a finding of permanent and total disability. The 

Injured Worker could look for sedentary employment. 

{¶ 6} Thereafter, Guthrie filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of 

Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its 

discretion in denying PTD. She focused on her extensive participation in 

rehabilitation and the program’s failure to lead to a job. These factors, she 

argued, compelled a finding of PTD. 

{¶ 7} The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the commission had 

not abused its discretion in concluding that Guthrie was medically and 

vocationally capable of sustained remunerative employment. The court found 

that the SHO did not ignore or improperly discount any relevant vocational 

factors, and the fact that Guthrie’s efforts at rehabilitation had not translated into a 

job was irrelevant to PTD eligibility. The court of appeals denied the writ, 

prompting Guthrie’s appeal to this court as of right. 

DISCUSSION

{¶ 8} PTD is the inability to perform sustained remunerative 

employment. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 509 

N.E.2d 946 (1987). It can result from the allowed medical conditions alone or in 

tandem with the factors enumerated in Stephenson. The weight to be given to 

these factors rests exclusively with the commission, which is considered to be the 

expert on PTD matters. State ex rel. Ellis v. McGraw Edison Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 

92, 94, 609 N.E.2d 164 (1993); State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., 79 Ohio 

St.3d 266, 271, 680 N.E.2d 1233 (1997). 
January Term, 2012 

5 

{¶ 9} The SHO’s conclusion that Guthrie’s allowed conditions did not 

foreclose sustained remunerative employment required her to analyze Guthrie’s 

Stephenson factors. Stephenson at 170. She discussed Guthrie’s age (50), varied 

work experience, education, and skills, which included a high school diploma, the 

completion of a four-year graphic-arts program, and computer training. She 

concluded that the cumulative effect of these factors on Guthrie’s capacity for 

sustained remunerative employment was “not of such magnitude that would 

warrant a finding of permanent and total disability.” This conclusion was within 

the hearing officer’s discretion as evidentiary evaluator and was not an abuse of 

discretion. 

{¶ 10} In her second proposition of law, Guthrie argues that the SHO 

improperly refused to consider her rehabilitation attempt as a factor in favor of 

PTD. Guthrie states that she made serious attempts at rehabilitation over a fiveyear period and that the SHO unfairly discounted those efforts. She implies that 

the SHO denied PTD to punish her for ignoring the rehabilitation division’s 

advice. She criticizes the SHO’s suggestion that her rehabilitation efforts were 

unsatisfactory and cites State ex rel. Ramsey v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 

99AP-733, 2000 WL 329058 (Mar. 30, 2000), affirmed without opinion, 91 Ohio 

St.3d 24, 740 N.E.2d 672 (2001), as support for the proposition that the 

commission denied PTD punitively. 

{¶ 11} Ramsey, however, is inapposite. First and foremost, according to 

the Ramsey court, the order denying PTD in that case appeared to rely solely upon 

the medical evidence, ignoring vocational information available in the file. The 

court held that the SHO had abused his discretion by failing to consider relevant 

vocational evidence. By contrast, the SHO in the instant case considered all 

factors before denying PTD. This court cannot second-guess her evaluation of the 

evidence. State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 405, 2011-Ohio-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

6036, 958 N.E.2d 948, ¶ 11 (the commission is exclusively responsible for 

assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence). 

{¶ 12} Second, even if Ramsey were not distinguishable for this reason, 

the language relied upon by Guthrie does not avail her. The vocational evidence 

in Ramsey showed that the claimant failed at rehabilitation, even though he did his 

best to succeed. In issuing a limited writ ordering the commission to consider that 

evidence, the court of appeals remarked that failure at rehabilitation is not always 

a negative factor, “used as a means to punish injured workers on those occasions 

when a hearing officer feels that the injured worker has failed to exercise his or 

her best efforts at rehabilitation.” 2000 WL 329058, *1. The court emphasized 

that a claimant’s good-faith, best-effort failure should be considered as a positive 

factor in favor of granting PTD compensation. 

{¶ 13} There is no basis in this case for imputing to the SHO a desire to 

punish the claimant because she failed at rehabilitation. The SHO considered all 

of the evidence.1

 The denial of PTD that followed was not “punishment”; it was 

the natural consequence of Guthrie’s failure to carry her burden of proof. Only 

when a denial is issued against a claimant who is incapable of sustained 

remunerative employment due to allowed conditions or a combination of those 

conditions and vocational factors can the denial be considered unjust and possibly 

punitive. 

{¶ 14} The fact that the SHO did not view Guthrie’s rehabilitation efforts 

favorably does not affect the validity of the order. The commission is exclusively 

responsible for interpreting the vocational evidence before it. Ellis, 66 Ohio St.3d 

at 94, 609 N.E.2d 164; Jackson, 79 Ohio St.3d at 271, 680 N.E.2d 1233. Here, 

the rehabilitation division made both favorable and unfavorable comments about 

 

1. The SHO did make repeated references to Guthrie’s failure to engage in a postrehabilitation job 

search. These were largely unnecessary observations and may have obfuscated—rather than 

enhanced—the most salient portion of the SHO’s order, which was that Guthrie was capable of 

sustained remunerative employment. 
January Term, 2012 

7 

Guthrie’s participation, and the commission was permitted to accept the latter 

over the former. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion. 

{¶ 15} Guthrie also believes that the commission should have factored her 

deafness into its PTD analysis. She is incorrect. A disability finding can never be 

based––even in part––on medical conditions that are unrelated to the industrial 

injury. State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm., 67 Ohio St.3d 452, 454-455, 619 

N.E.2d 1018 (1993); State ex rel. Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 127 

Ohio St.3d 385, 2010-Ohio-6135, 939 N.E.2d 1242, ¶ 13-15. 

{¶ 16} Finally, Guthrie asserts that by attributing her inability to work to 

the poor job market, the SHO improperly factored the economic climate into the 

PTD equation. This contention fails for the reasons given by the court of appeals. 

PTD was denied because Guthrie was found to be medically and vocationally 

capable of sustained remunerative employment. That finding is all that matters. 

In referring to the job market, the SHO was merely speculating as to why 

Guthrie’s ability to work had not translated into an actual job. It was nothing 

more than a surplus observation that does not affect the merit of the SHO’s 

analysis. 

{¶ 17} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Philip J. Fulton Law Office, Ross R. Fulton, and Philip J. Fulton, for 

appellant. 

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Rema A. Ina, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee. 

______________________