Opinion ID: 4565860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equivocal Evidence

Text: {¶ 29} “[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). “[E]quivocation occurs when a doctor repudiates an earlier opinion, renders contradictory or uncertain opinions, or fails to clarify an ambiguous statement.” Id. Omni Manor argues that Dr. Tonnies’s report and C-9 form are equivocal and therefore not proper evidence. We disagree. {¶ 30} Dr. Tonnies’s report stated, “The patient has a massive tear of the rotator cuff with retraction. The patient already has muscle atrophy. A primary repair of the rotator cuff is unlikely at this time secondary to the degree of involvement. Her best option would be that of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.” Taking this statement together with the C-9 form listing rotator-cuff tear as the diagnosis and a reverse total-shoulder arthroplasty as the requested treatment, we find no ambiguity, contradiction, or uncertainty: Dr. Tonnies believes that a primary repair of Garringer’s torn rotator cuff would not be successful and that a reverse total-shoulder arthroplasty would be the best option to treat it. The commission did not abuse its discretion by relying on this evidence.