Opinion ID: 4512513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Rutherford’s opinion

Text: {¶ 24} “[E]quivocal medical opinions are not evidence.” State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp., 70 Ohio St.3d 649, 657, 640 N.E.2d 815 (1994). 10 January Term, 2020 “[E]quivocation occurs when a doctor repudiates an earlier opinion, renders contradictory or uncertain opinions, or fails to clarify an ambiguous statement.” Id. In its third proposition of law, Navistar argues that Dr. Rutherford’s opinion is equivocal on the question whether Bisdorf could have engaged in sustained remunerative employment and that the commission abused its discretion by relying on Dr. Rutherford’s opinion. However, this argument is immaterial, because the commission relied on the reports of both Dr. Rutherford and Dr. Grunstein, and even if we were to exclude Dr. Rutherford’s report as equivocal, Dr. Grunstein’s report would constitute some evidence supporting the commission’s conclusion that Bisdorf was incapable of sustained remunerative employment. See State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 400, 402, 667 N.E.2d 1210 (1996). Accordingly, we do not reach Navistar’s third proposition of law.