Opinion
No. 88-946
Submitted April 11, 1989 —
Decided June 14, 1989.
Workers' compensation — Remand to commission to specify evidence on which it relied.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 86AP-597.
Claimant, Harold Breech, was injured on June 3, 1982 while in the course of and arising from his employment with appellee, Osco Industries, a self-insured employer. His workers' compensation claim was assigned claim No. 788842-22 and was recognized for "low back sprain." On October 8, 1984, claimant alleged a second low back injury, which was assigned claim No. 860769-22. This latter claim came before an Industrial Commission ("commission") district hearing officer on several issues, including payment of temporary total disability compensation.
The hearing officer's order read in pertinent part:
"Temporary Total Compensation is awarded from 9-15-84 through 4-30-85 and to continue pending rehearing.
"That the captioned claim [No. 860769-22] be construed as a C-85-A, (Application to Re-Activate the Claim) in Claim #788842-22 and combined in that file.
"* * *
"This order is based on the medical reports of Dr. Gindin, Dr. Robert Turner, and Dr. Ronald Turner. Reports in the 788842-22 file support Temporary Total Disability."
Appellee appealed and the regional board affirmed the order with minor modification. On appeal, staff hearing officers, by order of February 12, 1986, terminated claimant's temporary total disability compensation as of November 5, 1985, based on the report of commission specialist Dr. Timothy J. Fallon, who found claimant capable of returning to his former position of employment.
Appellee filed for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County alleging that the commission abused its discretion in awarding compensation from September 15, 1984 through November 5, 1985, and requesting vacation of that award. The appellate court agreed, finding the commission order unsupported by "some evidence." The appellate court granted the writ and ordered the commission to vacate the February 12, 1986 order of the staff hearing officers to the extent that it awarded temporary total compensation from September 15, 1984 through November 5, 1985.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Taft, Stettinius Hollister and Robert S. Corker, for appellee.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Gerald H. Waterman, for appellant.
As a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, a court must find that: (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested; (2) the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act sought; and (3) the relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc., v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O. 3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus. An Industrial Commission order is subject to correction in mandamus only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47, 1 O.O. 2d 190, 139 N.E.2d 41. An abuse of discretion occurs when the commission issues an order unsupported by "some evidence." State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 31 OBR 70, 72, 508 N.E.2d 936, 938.
The commission's award of temporary total disability compensation was "based on the medical reports of Dr. Gindin, Dr. Robert Turner, and Dr. Ronald Turner * * * [and] [r]eports in the 788842-22 file * * *." The commission agrees with the appellate court's conclusion that the Turner and Gindin reports are not "some evidence" supporting the commission's order. The commission contends, however, that the reference to unspecified reports in claim No. 788842-22 is "some evidence." This contention is not persuasive.
State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 483-484, 6 OBR 531, 534, 453 N.E.2d 721, 724, directed that commission orders "specifically state which evidence and only that evidence which has been relied upon [by the commission] to reach [its] conclusion." Under Mitchell, vague or ambiguous explanations are no longer acceptable. Mitchell indicated that this court would not search the record for "some evidence" supporting the commission's decision and stated that unclear commission decisions should be remanded for clarification.
We recently reiterated the Mitchell ruling in State, ex rel. Frigidaire Div., General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 105, 518 N.E.2d 1194, paragraph two of the syllabus, stating: "An order of the Industrial Commission which is not sufficiently specific for the Supreme Court to review without searching the record will be remanded to the commission for clarification."
We thus modify the appellate court's judgment and issue a limited writ remanding the cause to the commission to specify those reports in claim No. 788842-22 on which it relied in reaching its conclusion.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.