Case Name: The State ex rel. Fultz, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1994-05-18
Citations: 69 Ohio St. 3d 327
Docket Number: No. 93-1376
Parties: The State ex rel. Fultz, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 69
Pages: 327–329

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Fultz, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327.]
(No. 93-1376
Submitted March 22, 1994
Decided May 18, 1994.)
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A, Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, for appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This controversy centers on a Noll sufficiency review and, if the order is found lacking, the relief deemed appropriate. Upon review, we find a Noll consideration to be premature, but for the reasons set forth below, we nonetheless affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Neither the commission's rehabilitation report nor Riccio's vocational report is listed in the commission's order as being among the evidence the commission considered. While the commission correctly contends in essence that it need only enumerate the evidence relied on, the fact that the commission in listing the evidence considered omitted those two reports from that list, leads to only one conclusion — the commission either inadvertently or intentionally ignored that evidence. Because these reports could be the key to the success or failure of claimant's application, the cause must be returned to the commission for further consideration.
Accordingly, the appellate judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.