Opinion
No. 81-1112
Decided June 23, 1982.
Workers' compensation — Permanent and total disability claim — Properly denied, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
On January 23, 1959, appellant, Melvin E. Griffin, sustained an injury while in the course of his employment with the Leo Brielmeier Company. A claim was subsequently filed with the Industrial Commission and allowed for "[b]ruises, contusions, and abrasion of [the] right leg and back, lumbosacral sprain." In 1963, appellant received a 15 percent permanent partial disability award for this injury. Thereafter, appellant was awarded percentage increases of permanent partial disability until 1979, when, pursuant to an application, the commission found appellant to be 90 percent permanently and partially disabled.
On January 10, 1980, appellant filed a motion for permanent total disability based upon medical evidence of record contained in his 1979 claim. At the request of the commission, appellant was examined by Dr. D.D. Kackley, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Kackley concluded that "on the basis of the clinical examination * * * [appellant] would not be considered * * * Permanently and Totally Impaired in regard to his back and lower extremity complaints." Hearings were conducted in July 1980, after which the commission issued an order denying appellant's motion.
Appellant then initiated the instant action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals seeking a writ directing the commission to find him permanently and totally disabled and to award compensation accordingly. The Court of Appeals denied the writ, holding that the commission's order was supported by some evidence.
The cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Thompson, Meier Dersom, Mr. Harold C. Meier and Mr. Thomas D. Thompson, for appellant. Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Gerald H. Waterman, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Appellant contends that the commission abused its discretion when his motion for permanent total disability benefits was denied. We disagree.
This court has often stated that "* * * the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion." State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16; State, ex rel. Reed, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 200. Additionally, where the record before the commission contains some evidence supporting its factual findings, those findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 160; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 408.
In the instant cause, the hereinbefore mentioned medical opinion of Dr. Kackley clearly constitutes some evidence upon which the commission was entitled to rely in reaching a determination resulting in the denial of appellant's motion for a permanent and total disability award. Accordingly, since the record contains some evidence which supports the factual findings of the commission, those findings will not be disturbed.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals denying the writ is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.
The issue presented in this case was not whether the claimant was unable to work, but whether that inability was due to the work related injuries he sustained in 1959. All submitted medical reports contained language which suggested that the claimant's present condition did not necessarily stem from his industrial injuries. There was therefore substantial, reliable, and probative evidence to support the commission's denial of permanent and total disability.
Accordingly, and because the per curiam opinion recognizes the continuing validity of the nebulous "some evidence" rule (see dissents in State, ex rel. Allerton, v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.2d 396, at 399-400, and State, ex rel. Teece, v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165, at 170-174), I concur in the judgment only.