From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Industrial Commission

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1998
699 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio 1998)

Opinion

No. 97-1531

Submitted August 19, 1998.

Decided October 14, 1998.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD09-1210.

Law Offices of Larry Hotchkiss and Scott A. Bravi for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, CooK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., dissent.


I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission to consider the report of bureau vocational specialist Rod Metcalf. The commission's order lists reports reviewed and evaluated, but omits mention of the Metcalf report. I disagree with the court of appeals' finding that the commission satisfied the requirement that it indicate consideration of the Metcalf report because another vocational report makes several references to it. It is the commission's duty to evaluate all the evidence, and it may not delegate that responsibility. See State ex rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 572, 577, 679 N.E.2d 295, 299; State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.


Summaries of

State v. Industrial Commission

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 14, 1998
699 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio 1998)
Case details for

State v. Industrial Commission

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE EX EEL. HUMPHREY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 14, 1998

Citations

699 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio 1998)
699 N.E.2d 1287

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Alston v. Indus. Comm., Ohio

In fact, it is the commission's practice to require a PTD claimant to fill out a written vocational…