Opinion
No. 88-1213
Submitted October 17, 1989 —
Decided January 10, 1990.
Workers' compensation — Requirements that commission orders must meet.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 85AP-885.
Appellee Ernest A. Flowers ("claimant") was injured in 1983 while in the course of and arising from his employment with appellant, Delco Moraine Division, General Motors Corporation. His workers' compensation claim was allowed by appellee Industrial Commission ("commission") for "cervical strain, lumbar paravertebral strain." Compensation and benefits followed.
A commission district hearing officer later terminated claimant's temporary total disability compensation. The Dayton Regional Board of Review affirmed. This order was vacated on May 15, 1985 by staff hearing officers who continued temporary total compensation from April 26, 1984 "based on the reports of Drs. Mays, Siehl and McNealy [ sic MacNealy]."
Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County arguing that continued temporary total compensation was an abuse of discretion since any alleged disability was unrelated to the allowed conditions. The appellate court was persuaded in part and issued a limited writ remanding the cause to the commission to comply "[w]ith the Mitchell [ State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins Myers, Inc. (1984), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721] * * * requirement to state a brief explanation for the determination awarding Mr. Flowers temporary total disability compensation beyond April 26, 1984. Furthermore, particular emphasis should be placed on Mr. Flowers' disability in regard to his allowed conditions which preclude him from returning to his former position of employment."
The commission referred the file to staff hearing officers for an amended order. The staff hearing officers, in turn, referred the claim to a district hearing officer to determine whether "chronic chondritis, C6-7 radiculopathy-left and L5-S1 radiculopathy-left" were causally related to the industrial injury. Appellant's motion for rehearing was denied.
When no amended order followed, the appellant filed with the appellate court a motion to show cause why the commission should not be cited for contempt for failing to comply with the limited writ. While this motion was pending, the commission issued the following order on April 12, 1988:
"Further supplementing the order of May 15, 1985, the reason for the order is as follows:
"Claimant's former position of employment was machine operator which is strenuous. The medical report of Dr. Donald Siehl finding a spinal somatic dysfunction and myofibrositis, cervical and lumbar low cervical and low lumbar radiculitis and radiculopathy prevent claimant from performing his duties as a [m]achine operator. Further, Dr. Diehl [ sic] finds claimant would be dangerous in this job to fellow employees.
"Dr. Dewey Mays continuously indicated claimant is unable to do former job and continues to be disabled.
"Dr. Fred Smith found cervical root irritation and that prevents claimant from working as a machine operator.
"Dr. M. McNealy's [ sic] finding of radiculopathy prevents claimant from working as a machine operator."
Appellant's motion to show cause was denied.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Cowden, Pfarrer, Crew Becker and Robert J. Davidek, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Dennis L. Hufstader, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Stewart Jaffy Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Renny J. Tyson, for appellee Flowers.
R.C. 2731.13 and 2731.16 permit a contempt citation to issue against a public board that fails to obey a peremptory writ of mandamus. Appellant challenges the appellate court's refusal to find the commission in contempt, alleging commission noncompliance with that court's limited writ. Absent an abuse of discretion, however, we will not reverse the decision of an appellate court in a contempt proceeding. State, ex rel. Ventrone, v. Birkel (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 10, 19 O.O. 3d 191, 417 N.E.2d 1249. See, also, Cady v. Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. (1933), 126 Ohio St. 171, 184 N.E. 511. For the reasons to follow, we affirm the judgment below.
For a contempt citation to issue, there must be "disobedience of an order of a court." Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 56 O.O. 2d 31, 271 N.E.2d 815, paragraph one of the syllabus. In addition, disobedience must be "without just excuse." R.C. 2731.13; State, ex rel. Mahoning Law Library Assn., v. Bd. of Commrs. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 56, 7 O.O. 3d 132, 372 N.E.2d 349. Because we find that the commission complied with the appellate court's order, we find it unnecessary to address this latter element.
The appellate court instructed the commission to issue an amended order that satisfied our directive in State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins Myers, Inc. (1984), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721. Pursuant to the appellate court's instruction, the commission ultimately issued a supplemental order on April 12, 1988. Appellant essentially contends that this order does not contain "some evidence" supporting an award of temporary total compensation and thus does not comply with the appellate court's order.
Mitchell, however, only requires that commission orders "specifically state which evidence and only that evidence which has been relied upon to reach their conclusion, and a brief explanation stating why the claimant is or is not entitled to the benefits requested." Id. at 483-484, 6 OBR at 534, 453 N.E.2d at 724. We find that the commission's supplemental order satisfied this requirement. Whether the cited evidence also constituted "some evidence" is irrelevant to the question presently at bar. We thus find no appellate abuse of discretion in denying appellant's motion to show cause.
Accordingly, the appellate court's judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.