Court Opinion

ID: 9901743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 15:07:44.324259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.346962
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Block v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4184.]

                                           NOTICE
      This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
      advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
      promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
      South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
      formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
      the opinion is published.

                          SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-4184
   THE STATE EX REL . BLOCK, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF
                                 OHIO ET AL., APPELLEE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
     may be cited as State ex rel. Block v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No.
                                     2023-Ohio-4184.]
Workers’ compensation—Permanent-partial-disability compensation—If one
        finding provides an independent basis for Industrial Commission’s decision
        and that finding is supported by some evidence, commission’s order will not
        be disturbed—Some evidence in record supports Industrial Commission’s
        decision denying claimant’s request for compensation for loss of use of
        hand—Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed.
(No. 2023-0080—Submitted September 26, 2023—Decided November 22, 2023.)
               APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,
                             No. 20AP-137, 2022-Ohio-4474.
                                   __________________
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 1} Appellant, Michael E. Block, appeals the judgment of the Tenth
District Court of Appeals denying his complaint for a writ of mandamus requiring
appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, to award him a scheduled award of
permanent-partial-disability (“PPD”) compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) for the
loss of the use of his right hand. Because some evidence in the record supports the
commission’s decision denying Block’s request for compensation, we affirm the
court of appeals’ judgment.
                                 BACKGROUND
       {¶ 2} Block was injured in December 2012 during the course of his
employment as a laborer when he fell 35 feet from a roof onto concrete below. The
Bureau of Workers’ Compensation allowed Block’s claim for several conditions,
including “closed fracture right distal radius,” “nonunion right wrist due to
progressive collapse of distal radius,” and “myofascitis right wrist.” After surgeries
on his right wrist and years of treatment, Block, who is right-handed, requested that
the commission award him compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) for the loss of the
use of his right hand. In support of his request, Block relied primarily on reports
from his treating physician and surgeon.
       {¶ 3} Antony M. George, M.D., board certified in preventive medicine,
reported that he had been treating Block “for quite some time.” Dr. George’s report
noted the following: after more than one surgery and several attempts at trigger-
point injections, Block “still has significant loss of function”; his right-hand
“functional grip strength” is below national standards for employment; his right and
left grips tested at 11 and 26 pounds, respectively, and “any construction or roofing
job” would “not be possible”; significant scarring has resulted in ankylosis and the
loss of motion in Block’s right wrist; he has recurring spasms and recurring pain
with daily-living activities; and his pinch-grip strength is less than 50 percent
“comparatively on repetitive testing.” Dr. George recommended that “without any

                                           2
                                       January Term, 2023

plans for further surgical intervention * * * or any great change in his function * * *
it be considered a total loss of use of [Block’s] right hand for gainful employment.”1
Dr. George concluded that “treatment is still necessary for palliative reasons and to
improve [Block’s] level of function for activities of daily living and self care.”
         {¶ 4} Block also submitted a report from an independent medical examiner,
Maria Armstrong Murphy, M.D., who provided her opinion related to ongoing
temporary-total-disability         (“TTD”)       compensation and maximum                    medical
improvement.2         Dr. Murphy opined that her findings support ongoing TTD
compensation and that Block cannot return to working on a roof but that he had not
yet reached maximum medical improvement for certain allowed conditions,
including those affecting the right upper extremity.
         {¶ 5} Mark Pellegrino, M.D., board certified in physical medicine and
rehabilitation, conducted an independent medical examination of Block at the
bureau’s request. Dr. Pellegrino reported the following: Block’s right wrist is fused
with no range of motion present; there is “a right palmar flexion deformity,” and
Block is unable to flatten his right palm on a level surface; light palpation results in
complaints of pain and an exaggerated withdrawal response; scars in the wrist area
are sensitive to palpation; “[i]ndividual fingers and right thumb passive range of

1. This case involves a claim for a scheduled award of PPD compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B),
which is akin to damages and is awarded regardless of earning capacity. See State ex rel. Gen.
Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 42 Ohio St.2d 278, 282, 328 N.E.2d 387 (1975). Dr. George’s
finding that Block’s grip strength is not enough for him to obtain a certain type of job and his opinion
that Block’s condition should be considered a total loss of use “for gainful employment” suggest
that he used the incorrect standard to evaluate Block’s loss of use. That is, Dr. George seemed to
focus—improperly—on loss of earning capacity. Dr. George may have remedied that shortcoming
in his rebuttal report when he concluded that Block’s condition should be considered a “loss of use
for all practical intents and purposes.” See State ex rel. Alcoa Bldg. Prods. v. Indus. Comm., 102
Ohio St.3d 341, 2004-Ohio-3166, 810 N.E.2d 946, ¶ 12-14 (adopting the “all practical intents and
purposes” test for demonstrating a compensable “loss of use” under R.C. 4123.57(B)). This defect,
however, was not raised on appeal and is not dispositive in this appeal.

2. Pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(C), a claimant may receive PPD compensation for losses of use under
R.C. 4123.57(B) in addition to TTD compensation under R.C. 4123.56.

                                                   3
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

motions [are] within normal limits”; Block reports no pinprick sensation throughout
the dorsal hand and palm involving digits 4 and 5; he reports a tingling pinprick
sensation in the palmar aspect of digits 4 and 5; no light-touch or pinprick
abnormalities are noted in the right radial side of the hand, including all of digits 1,
2, and 3; muscle-strength testing is “essentially 5/5” in the right-hand muscles, and
Block is able to make the “okay” sign with nearly normal strength; some weakness
is noted in the wrist extensor muscles; and Block can move his thumb to his index,
middle, ring, and little fingers in a fine-motor pincher grasp.
        {¶ 6} Dr. Pellegrino found that Block’s “primarily functional limitation
pertaining to the right arm is ca[u]sed by fusion of the right wrist” and that “the
right hand neurological function * * * remains functionally intact to allow full range
of motion without increased pain, grasping and pincher grasp and fine motor
movement.”     Based on these findings, Dr. Pellegrino opined that Block has
“functional use of the right hand to perform tasks such as buttoning, holding
silverware, hold[ing] and drinking from a cup, and writing.” Dr. Pellegrino
concluded that “the allowed injury has not resulted in a total permanent loss of use
of the right hand”; that Block’s “right hand is capable of performing most of the
function which it commonly performs despite the allowed conditions in the claim,
and the limitations imposed by the allowed conditions”; and that Block’s “wrist
fusion results in difficulty achieving certain functional positions to enable use of
his right hand but this is not to the extent where it renders his right hand useless for
all practical purposes.”
        {¶ 7} Dr. George submitted a rebuttal report identifying “several areas [in
Dr. Pellegrino’s report] that are not appropriate or consistent with the history or
physical exam.” Specifically, Dr. George noted the following: Block has less than
50 percent right-hand grip strength, not the “essentially 5/5” that Dr. Pellegrino
found, and none of the occupational therapy treatments have led to any increase in
Block’s grip strength; Block’s history and physical exam contradict Dr.

                                           4
                                 January Term, 2023

Pellegrino’s opinion that Block has strength and functionality intact, full range of
motion without increased pain, and the ability to perform fine-motor movement;
the more reliable understanding of Block’s level of functioning is that his use of his
right hand for daily activities has become very limited and that he has therefore
become a left-handed person; and there is no job that Block would be qualified for
under vocational rehabilitation. Dr. George concluded that someone need not have
“absolute total loss or no use of a hand for it to be designated as a loss of use for all
practical intents and purposes.” Dr. George also concluded that Block’s loss of use
“is not the same thing as an amputation or paralysis but even with the ankylosis as
a result of the surgery it meets this requirement.”
        {¶ 8} A district hearing officer granted Block’s request for scheduled-loss
compensation, but a staff hearing officer (“SHO”) vacated that order on the
commission’s appeal. The SHO denied Block’s request based on two findings,
which the SHO referred to as “factors”: (1) Block “ha[d] not presented proof that
the functional limitations in the use of his right hand are permanent” and (2) Dr.
Pellegrino’s report “documents that [Block] retains some function of the hand and
has not lost function in the hand for all practical purposes.” Further administrative
review was denied.
        {¶ 9} Block filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District
Court of Appeals. The court of appeals, finding the reports of Dr. George and Dr.
Pellegrino to be “some evidence” supporting the commission’s decision, denied the
writ. 2022-Ohio-4474, ¶ 10-13.
        {¶ 10} This cause is now before us on Block’s appeal as of right.
                                     ANALYSIS
        {¶ 11} In a direct appeal of a mandamus action originating in a court of
appeals, we review the judgment as if the action had been originally filed here.
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141, 164, 228 N.E.2d 631
(1967). Block is entitled to a writ of mandamus if he shows by clear and convincing

                                           5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

evidence that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, that the commission
has a clear legal duty to provide it, and that there is no adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Zarbana Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.,
166 Ohio St.3d 216, 2021-Ohio-3669, 184 N.E.3d 81, ¶ 10. A writ of mandamus
may lie when there is a legal basis to compel the commission to perform its clear
legal duty under the law or when the commission has abused its discretion in
carrying out its duties. State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio
St.3d 480, 2008-Ohio-1593, 884 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 9. “Where a commission order is
adequately explained and based on some evidence, even evidence that may be
persuasively contradicted by other evidence of record, the order will not be
disturbed as manifesting an abuse of discretion.” State ex rel. Mobley v. Indus.
Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 579, 584, 679 N.E.2d 300 (1997). Neither this court nor the
court of appeals may substitute its judgment for the commission’s in evaluating the
evidence. State ex rel. Athey v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 473, 476, 733 N.E.2d
589 (2000).
       {¶ 12} R.C. 4123.57 governs PPD compensation. R.C. 4123.57(B) sets
forth a compensation schedule, payable at the statewide average weekly wage for a
specified number of weeks, for losses of enumerated body parts (or functions, such
as hearing and sight).    For purposes of scheduled-loss compensation, “loss”
includes amputation or severance as well as a “loss of use” of the affected body part
that is both permanent and total, to the same effect and extent as if the body part
had been physically removed. State ex rel. Walker v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.2d
402, 403-404, 390 N.E.2d 1190 (1979), citing State ex rel. Gassmann v. Indus.
Comm., 41 Ohio St.2d 64, 67, 322 N.E.2d 660 (1975).
       {¶ 13} Block argues that because the commission’s order specifies that the
denial of compensation was based on two findings, those two findings must both
be supported by some evidence in the record. He provides no support for this
proposition, and the Tenth District has consistently held to the contrary. See, e.g.,

                                         6
                                  January Term, 2023

State ex rel. Davis-Hodges v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-183,
2010-Ohio-5871, ¶ 41 (“Where the commission provides an alternative rationale
for its determination which withstands the scrutiny of mandamus review and
provides an independent basis for the commission’s decision, the fact that the
commission incorrectly applied the law in a separate portion of the order does not
constitute grounds for the granting of a writ of mandamus”). We reject Block’s
argument. If one finding provides an independent basis for the commission’s
decision and that finding is supported by some evidence, we will not disturb the
order as manifesting an abuse of discretion.
        {¶ 14} The first of the two findings that the commission cited in denying
Block’s request for compensation is that he had “not presented proof that the
functional limitations in the use of his right hand are permanent.”
        {¶ 15} There is no statutory definition of “permanent” in Ohio’s workers’
compensation act, and the term has different meanings as applied to different forms
of compensation. State ex rel. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio
St.3d 341, 2009-Ohio-1219, 904 N.E.2d 521, ¶ 19-20, citing State ex rel. Advantage
Tank Lines v. Indus. Comm., 107 Ohio St.3d 16, 2005-Ohio-5829, 836 N.E.2d 550,
¶ 8. For example, “permanency” in the context of TTD compensation “means that
the condition will never improve to the point where the claimant can resume his or
her former job.” Advantage Tank Lines at ¶ 8. TTD compensation can be
terminated on a basis of permanency only when the claimant has reached maximum
medical improvement. DaimlerChrysler Corp. at ¶ 24.
        {¶ 16} On the other hand, PPD compensation “is completely unrelated to a
claimant’s ability to return to his or her former position. It is instead akin to a
damages award.”3 Advantage Tank Lines at ¶ 9. In this context, which includes

3. For this reason—and contrary to the commission’s argument on appeal—Dr. Murphy’s opinion
that Block has not yet reached maximum medical improvement in the context of ongoing TTD

                                            7
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

scheduled loss-of-use awards under R.C. 4123.57(B), “ ‘permanency’ always
represents a level above which a claimant’s condition will never improve” and “also
represents the level to which a claimant’s condition can improve, should the
condition temporarily worsen.” (Emphasis sic.) Advantage Tank Lines at ¶ 9.
        {¶ 17} According to Block, there are a “multitude” of medical and surgical
records before us that contradict the commission’s finding that he presented no
proof of permanency. The evidence Block cites, however, demonstrates only the
extent of his physical limitations—e.g., that he experiences pain, atrophy,
tremoring, and limited range of motion in the right hand. Block appears to posit
that a finding of permanency is supported solely by the amount of time that has
passed since his injury, during which time he has undergone multiple surgeries and
years of treatment. And although evidence of permanency may be shown by
inference, see generally State ex rel. Phillips v. Indus. Comm., 5 Ohio St.3d 202,
449 N.E.2d 1307 (1983), it is noteworthy that none of the medical reports submitted
by Block explicitly opine that his limitations have reached a level of permanency.
        {¶ 18} Dr. George arguably addressed the permanency of Block’s loss of
use when he wrote, “It is at this time I believe that without any plans for further
surgical intervention * * * or any great change in his function, I am recommending
that it be considered a total loss of use of his right hand for gainful employment.”
He continued, “It is with a significant amount of effort and persistence by the
medical parties involved as well as the patient that we have arrived at this point.
We believe that treatment is still necessary for palliative reasons and to improve his
level of function for activities of daily living and self care in the hopes to minimize
or eliminate the need for narcotic pain medicine if possible.” In his rebuttal report,
Dr. George also noted that Block’s occupational therapist had “decided that any

compensation is unrelated to a determination that the loss of the use of Block’s right hand is not
permanent.

                                                8
                                 January Term, 2023

further progressive strengthening would be of no value since none of their
treatments had led to any increase in his grip strength.”
          {¶ 19} However, “the commission has substantial leeway in both
interpreting and drawing inferences from the evidence before it.” State ex rel.
Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39, 2004-Ohio-6086, 817 N.E.2d 880,
¶ 34. Here, that leeway permitted the commission to conclude that Dr. George’s
report is not evidence of a permanent loss of use—i.e., that the report does not offer
proof that Block’s condition has reached a level above which it will never improve.
See Advantage Tank Lines, 107 Ohio St.3d 16, 2005-Ohio-5829, 836 N.E.2d 550,
at ¶ 9.
          {¶ 20} Additionally, Block argues that the commission abused its discretion
by failing to identify which theory of loss was the focus of its finding regarding
proof of permanency. Loss of a hand under R.C. 4123.57(B) may be shown under
a “flat loss” theory or a “two fingers plus” theory. See State ex rel. Timmerman
Truss, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 244, 2004-Ohio-2589, 809 N.E.2d 15,
¶ 24. However, because the commission found no evidence of a permanent loss of
use, it is unclear how the theory of the underlying loss is necessary or relevant.
          {¶ 21} Block further contends that the commission violated its duty under
State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 206, 567 N.E.2d 245 (1991),
to “specifically state what evidence has been relied upon to reach its conclusion”
that Block did not present proof of permanency. Again, because the commission
found no evidence of permanency, it is unclear what the commission should have
“specifically state[d]” had been relied upon. To be sure, the commission did
express that “[a]ll proof on file was reviewed and considered.”
          {¶ 22} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the commission did not
abuse its discretion in finding that Block had failed to present proof of a permanent
loss of the use of his right hand.

                                           9
                                   SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

         {¶ 23} Turning to the second of the two findings that the commission cited
in denying Block’s request for scheduled-loss compensation, the commission found
that Dr. Pellegrino’s report “documents that [Block] retains some function of the
hand and has not lost function in the hand for all practical purposes.” Block
contends that Dr. Pellegrino’s report cannot constitute some evidence to support
the commission’s decision, because it is internally inconsistent and/or equivocal.
However, the commission’s finding that Block failed to present proof of a
permanent loss of use provides an independent basis for the commission’s decision,
and we have concluded that the commission did not abuse its discretion in making
this finding. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the commission could
rely on Dr. Pellegrino’s report as evidence that Block did not establish a total loss
of use, and we decline to do so.4
                                        CONCLUSION
         {¶ 24} Because some evidence in the record supports the commission’s
decision denying Block’s request for compensation for the loss of the use of his
right hand, the commission did not abuse its discretion and the Tenth District Court
of Appeals correctly denied the writ. Accordingly, we affirm the Tenth District’s
judgment denying Block’s complaint for a writ of mandamus.
                                                                             Judgment affirmed.
         KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                     _________________
         Denio A. Leone, L.L.C., and Denio A. Leone, for appellant.

4. It is likewise unnecessary to address the commission’s argument, in defense of the Tenth District’s
judgment, that Block is not entitled to compensation because the allowed conditions are in the wrist,
not the hand. This was not a stated reason for the commission’s decision to deny compensation, and
although the Tenth District magistrate noted that Block’s “allowed conditions and ankylosis are in
his wrist, not his hand,” 2022-Ohio-4474 at ¶ 57, the court did not uphold the commission’s denial
on that basis.

                                                 10
                            January Term, 2023

       Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Andrew J. Alatis, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
                            _________________

                                     11