Case Name: The State, ex rel. Jeffrey Mining Machinery Division, Dresser Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1990-12-12
Citations: 56 Ohio St. 3d 91
Docket Number: No. 89-2161
Parties: The State, ex rel. Jeffrey Mining Machinery Division, Dresser Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 56
Pages: 91–95

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Jeffrey Mining Machinery Division, Dresser Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
[Cite as State, ex rel. Jeffrey Mining Machinery Div., Dresser Industries, Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 56 Ohio St. 3d 91.]
(No. 89-2161
Submitted September 25, 1990
Decided December 12, 1990.)
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Robert A. Minor and Elizabeth T. Smith, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, Michael L. Squillace and Sandra L. Becher, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant contends that the medical reports in issue attributed claimant's disability to non-allowed conditions. Appellant submits that the only condition allowed is "[hjerniated nucleus pulposes L5-S1 on right." Since the medical reports consistently referred to "lumbar strain" and "low back pain" with respect to claimant's condition, appellant argues that claimant's condition is not compensable.
In our view, the commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hear appellant's appeal and, thus, we uphold the granting of temporary total compensation to claimant, because there was "some evidence" to support such a decision. See State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St. 3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E. 2d 936.
A review of the record indicates that the commission was apparently satisfied that claimant's condition was basically the same condition that had been previously compensated. As we stated in Burley, supra, at 20, 31 OBR at 72, 508 N.E. 2d at 938:
" [T]he party which challenges the Industrial Commission's determination as to the extent of disability bears the burden of demonstrating that the commission's determination manifests an abuse of discretion and, in this context, abuse of discretion has been repeatedly defined as a showing that the commission's decision was rendered without some evidence to support it. State, ex rel. Elliott, v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 76, 79, 26 OBR 66, 68, 497 N.E. 2d 70, 72; State, ex rel. Milburn, v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 119, 121, 26 OBR 102, 103, 498 N.E. 2d 440, 441; State, ex rel. Rouch, v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co., supra [(1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 197], at 198, 26 OBR [289] at 290, 498 N.E. 2d [464] at 466."
Since the medical reports of Dr. Matrka do indeed appear to constitute "some evidence" to support the commission's decision, we affirm the court of appeals' denial of appellant's request for a writ of mandamus.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.