Opinion ID: 4525400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grounds for Continuing Jurisdiction

Text: {¶ 23} Having concluded that the commission’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction was timely, we proceed to consider Neitzelt’s claim that the commission abused its discretion when it found that Vitas established both new or changed circumstances and a mistake of fact. In making this determination, we apply a deferential standard: we will not order the commission to vacate its decision if the decision is supported by some evidence. State ex rel. Seibert v. Richard Cyr, Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 266, 2019-Ohio-3341, 134 N.E.3d 1185, ¶ 17. Evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence is the exclusive province of the commission, which “ ‘has substantial leeway in both interpreting and drawing inferences from the evidence before it.’ ” Id. at ¶ 30, quoting State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39, 2004-Ohio-6086, 817 N.E.2d 880, ¶ 34. {¶ 24} We find that some evidence before the commission supports its conclusion that the June 2016 determination that Neitzelt had suffered from a disc herniation was a mistake of fact: (1) Dr. Grisoni’s December 2016 operative report, which did not refer to a disc herniation in its description of Neitzelt’s pre- and postoperative diagnoses and its list of procedures performed and (2) Dr. Rozen’s report, which stated that Neitzelt “was not identified at time of surgery to have the condition of L4-5 disc herniation and no surgery was performed on the L4-5 intervertebral disc.” {¶ 25} Neitzelt challenges this evidence by arguing that the reports do not expressly state that there was no disc herniation in 2015 or 2016. She argues that it was “preposterous” and an exercise of “fallacious logic” for the commission to conclude from the reports that Neitzelt never suffered from that condition. But Neitzelt’s argument goes to the weight and credibility of the evidence, which is within the commission’s exclusive dominion. As noted, the commission has substantial leeway in drawing inferences from the evidence before it. Seibert at ¶ 30. We must therefore refrain from second-guessing the commission’s apparent 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO inference, based on Dr. Rozen’s report, that if Neitzelt had suffered from a herniated disc, that condition would have been addressed in Dr. Grisoni’s operative report. {¶ 26} We also reject Neitzelt’s argument that the surgical evidence does not constitute new and changed circumstances because Vitas or the commission could have discovered it at the time of the original determination in June 2016, see State ex rel. Knapp, 134 Ohio St.3d 134, 2012-Ohio-5379, 980 N.E.2d 987, ¶ 18 (“continuing jurisdiction is not appropriate    when the claimed new evidence was readily discoverable at the time of the award”). As Vitas points out, the decision to have surgery (which occurred in December 2016) was entirely within Neitzelt’s control—neither Vitas nor the commission could have obtained the information made available by the occurrence of the surgery prior to December 2016. {¶ 27} Accordingly, we conclude that the commission did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Vitas established the existence of a mistake of fact.