[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1508.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -1508
T HE S TATE EX REL . B OYD , A PPELLANT , v . S COTTS M IRACLE -G RO C OMPANY

ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1508.] Workers’ compensation—Permanent to tal disability—Industrial Commission did not abuse discretion in relying on exa mining physician’s report as evidence supporting order denying permanent total disab ility or in rejecting vocational consultant’s opinion in fa vor of Commission’s own analysis of vocational factors—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 2015-1023—Submitted January 26, 2016—Decided April 13, 2016.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-413,
2015-Ohio-2352.

_______________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Robert Boyd, ap peals the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying his complaint for a writ of mandamus that would require the Industrial Commission to aw ard him permanent-total-disability compensation. {¶ 2} We find that the commission’s order was supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, the commission did not abuse its discretion when it denied Boyd’s request, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. {¶ 3} Boyd retired from the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (“Scotts”) in 1983. He filed a claim for workers’ comp ensation benefits th at was allowed in2005 for asbestosis in both lungs. In 2013, Boyd applied for permanent-totaldisability benefits, and he submitted a re port from Marissa Mertz, M.D., in support of his application. Dr. Me rtz had conducted an independe nt medical evaluation of Boyd for purposes of determining permanent and total disability. She was not his treating physician. {¶ 4} Robert F. Shadel, M.D., reviewed the claim file on behalf of Scotts. Herbert A. Grodner, M.D., a board-certif ied pulmonologist, examined Boyd on
behalf of the commission. He concluded that Boyd had a mild restrictive impairment from the asbestosis that would not prevent Boyd from performing light
work. {¶ 5} Following a hearing, a staff hearing officer at the commission denied Boyd’s application based on the medical re ports of Dr. Shadel and Dr. Grodner and the hearing officer’s analysis of Boyd’s vocational disability factors. {¶ 6} Boyd filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus that would require
the commission to vacate its decision. Th e court of appeals denied the writ. {¶ 7} This matter is before this court on Boyd’s appeal as of right. {¶ 8} Permanent total disability is the “inability to perform sustained remunerative employment due to the allowed conditions in the claim.” OhioJanuary Term, 2016

3 Adm.Code 4121-3-34(B)(1); see also State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm ., 133 Ohio St.3d 244, 2012-Ohio-4637, 977 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 8. Mandamus is the appropriate means to challenge the commission’s determination of a claimant’s extent of disability. State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm ., 90 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 737 N.E.2d 519 (2000). {¶ 9} The party challenging the decision must demonstrate that the commission abused its discretion by ente ring an order not supported by any
evidence in the record. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. , 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 508 N.E.2d 936 (1987). This court’s role in reviewing mandamus actions challenging the commission’s decision is limited to determining whether there is some evidence in the record to suppo rt the commission’s stated basis for its
decision. Id. {¶ 10} Boyd maintains that the commission abused its discretion when it relied on the report of Dr. Grodner. Ac cording to Boyd, Dr. Grodner was not qualified to give an opinion because he did not take X-rays of Boyd and he was not certified as a “B reader” to interpret the X-rays, a requirement for asbestosis claims by the commission’s Resolution R03-1-02. Bo yd also contends that even if Dr. Grodner’s report is competent evidence, the commission abused its discretion when it did not rely on the vocational evidence in the record, including a report from consultant Molly Williams, wh ich supported a finding of pe rmanent total disability. {¶ 11} Boyd’s arguments fail because (1) Resolution R03-1-02 does not apply here, (2) Dr. Grodner’s report was evidence that supported the commission’s decision, and (3) the commission performed its own analysis of the vocational factors and was not required to accept Williams’s findings. {¶ 12} Dr. Grodner, a board-certified physician in pulmonology and internal medicine, conducte d an independent medical examination of Boyd to determine the extent of permanent total disa bility. In his report, Dr. Grodner stated that he had reviewed Boyd’s medical reco rds, including CT scans and X-rays, andS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 had conducted a physical examination and pulmonary-function studies. He concluded that Boyd was only minimally imp aired as a result of his asbestosis. {¶ 13} Boyd takes issue with the fact th at Dr. Grodner did not take X-rays and is not a certified “B reader” who could provide the written interpretation required by Resolution R03-1-02 for a specialist to give an opinion on disability related to asbestos. Boyd’s argu ment misinterprets the resolution. {¶ 14} Resolution R03-1-02 relates to the medical evidence necessary to support a claim for an asbestos-related cond ition. It requires the injured worker to initially produce medical evidence when an asbestos-related claim is being made and prior to adjudication of a claim if a nd when it is contested. Resolution R03-1-
02 states that

it is the policy of the Commission that, at a minimum, the following evidence is necessary to be submitted by the injured worker prior to the referral of the claim to the Administrator for an examination by a qualified medical specialist pursuant to the provisions of Section
4123.68 of the Ohio Revised Code conc erning claims for asbestosis, * * *, and at a minimum, the following evidence is also necessary to be submitted by an injured worker prior to the adjudication of a contested claim filed for any asbe stos-related occupational disease,
other than mesothelioma:

 A written interpretation of x-rays by a certified “B reader.”

 Pulmonary functions studies a nd interpretation by a licensed physician.

 An opinion of causal relationship by a licensed physician.

(Emphasis added.)January Term, 2016

5 {¶ 15} The requirements of Resolution R03-1-02 apply to the initial diagnosis and claim allowance of asbestosis. Anders v. Powertrain Div., Gen. Motors Corp ., 157 Ohio App.3d 815, 2004-Ohio-2469, 813 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). Boyd’s claim for asbestosis was al ready allowed and is not being contested; thus, Dr. Grodner was not performing the mandatory examination as a qualified medical specialist to diagnose an occupa tional disease identified in R.C. 4123.68. Moreover, Resolution R03-1-02 requires the injured worker to submit the necessary medical evidence. For these reasons, Re solution R03-1-02 does not apply to the report of Dr. Grodner. Consequently, Boyd fails to demonstrate that the
commission abused its discretion when it re lied on Dr. Grodner’s report as evidence supporting its order denying pe rmanent total disability. {¶ 16} Boyd also maintains that the hearing officer was required to rely on the vocational evidence in the record, such as his advanced age of 90 and the fact that he no longer drives. Boyd submitted a report from the vocational consultant, Williams, who opined that, based on the disab ility factors, in addition to the allowed medical condition, “it is obvious that the claimant is permanently and totally
disabled.” {¶ 17} This court has held that the commission is the exclusive evaluator of disability and is not required to accept vocational evidence, even if uncontroverted.
State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm ., 79 Ohio St.3d 266, 270, 680 N.E.2d 1233 (1997). The commission, as the expert on vocational evidence, had the discretion to reject Williams’s report in favor of its own analysis of vocational factors. See
id . at 271. In doing so, the commission acknowledged that Boyd’s age was a negative factor but contrasted it with positive factors such as his high school education and lengthy work history, including a supervisory position, until 2008. A claimant’s advanced age need not be an insurmountable barrier to reemployment. State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Indus. Comm ., 76 Ohio St.3d 400, 402, 667 N.E.2d 1210S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 (1996); State ex rel. Moss v. Indus. Comm ., 75 Ohio St.3d 414, 417, 662 N.E.2d 364 (1996). {¶ 18} The commission also noted that Boyd expressed concerns about his vision but that he was able to pass the visi on test to obtain his driver’s license. Thus, the hearing officer concluded that Boyd has the experience and skills, along with a driver’s license, to return to his prior employment as a runner for a car dealership. {¶ 19} The commission’s order was based on evidence in the record. Boyd
failed to demonstrate that the commission abused its discretion, and his complaint in mandamus fails. We affirm the j udgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ.,

concur. P FEIFER , J., concurs in judgment only.
L ANZINGER , J., dissents.

__________________ Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Patsy A. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L. P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company.

______________________