State, ex Rel. Muddiman, v. Carlisle Corp.

Full title: THE STATE, EX REL. MUDDIMAN, APPELLANT, v. CARLISLE CORPORATION ET AL.…

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 24, 1991

581 N.E.2d 1349 (Ohio 1991)

581 N.E.2d 1349

Opinion

No. 90-66

Submitted October 23, 1990 —

Decided December 24, 1991.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 89AP-221.

Appellant Norman A. Muddiman's workers' compensation claim was allowed for injuries sustained in 1976 in the course of and arising from his employment with appellee, Carlisle Corporation. In 1986, appellant filed an application for permanent and total disability compensation with the appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. Appellant was subsequently examined both physically and psychiatrically by two physicians of the commission — Dr. William Reynolds and Dr. Robert L. Turton — both of whom concluded that appellant could perform sustained remunerative work. A combined effects review by Dr. Paul H. Dillahunt contained a similar opinion.

The commission denied permanent total disability compensation based:

"[P]articularly upon the reports of Doctors Turton, Reynolds and Dillahunt, a consideration of the claimant's age, education, work history and other disability factors including physical, psychological and sociological, that are contained within the Statement of Facts prepared for the hearing on the instant Application, the evidence in the file, and the evidence adduced at the hearing."

Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying permanent total disability compensation. The appellate court denied the writ.

This cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant.

Thrasher, Dinsmore Dolan and Lawrence J. Dolan, for appellee Carlisle Corporation.

Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Michael L. Squillace, for appellee Industrial Commission.

Per Curiam.

Based on our decision in State, ex rel. Noll, v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and a limited writ is issued ordering the commission to identify the nonmedical disability factors relied on and to briefly explain its decision.

Judgment reversed and limited writ issued.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

HOLMES, J., dissents.

HOLMES, J., dissenting.

I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.