Summary
In Libbey-Owens-Ford, the commission relied upon the reports of Drs. Thomas and Steiman in rendering a PTD award. Dr. Thomas was the attending physician who concluded that claimant's allowed medical condition prevented sustained remunerative employment.
Summary of this case from Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel v. Indus. Comm.Opinion
No. 90-924
Submitted July 17, 1991 —
Decided October 9, 1991.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 88AP-847.
Appellee-claimant, Leo C. Karpinski, was injured in 1982 in the course of and arising from his employment with appellant, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for "[a]cute sciatic nerve impingement of right hip." In early 1988, claimant moved appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for permanent total disability compensation, submitting the report of attending physician Dr. Gregory M. Thomas. After discussing claimant's medical history, Dr. Thomas noted that claimant, during his most recent examination, exhibited weakness and numbness in his left leg and left great toe. Dr. Thomas also stated that claimant was awaiting another myelogram and CT scan "to see if there is anything left to operate on in his spine." The report concluded:
"From the above account, it should be apparent that this man [claimant] is not going to be able to go back to work in any capacity, certainly not at Libbey-Owens-Ford. He is now 62 years old. Considering the status of his low back and leg pain following multiple laminectomies, given his history of total hip replacement on the right side, he is certainly not a candidate for competitive employment in any capacity."
The commission found that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled, based:
"* * * [P]articularly upon the reports of Drs. Thomas and Steiman, 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 awarding permanent total disability compensation to claimant. Appellant alternately argued: (1) there was no evidence supporting the commission's order, and (2) the commission's order did not explain in detail what nonmedical disability factors were relied on in awarding permanent total disability compensation. The appellate court rejected both arguments and denied the writ.
This cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Marshall Melhorn and Michael S. Scalzo, for appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Michael L. Squillace and Peter E. DeMarco, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Jermann Associates and Gene T. Borgstahl, for appellee Karpinski.
We are again asked to perform an evidentiary review of a commission order awarding permanent total disability compensation. For the reasons to follow, we affirm the judgment rendered below.
In State, ex rel. Galion Mfg. Div., Dresser Industries, Inc., v. Haygood (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 38, 40, 573 N.E.2d 60, 62, we recently opined:
"* * * While permanent total disability benefits may never be denied solely on the basis of medical evidence without consideration of Stephenson [State, ex rel. Stephenson, v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 31 OBR 369, 509 N.E.2d 946, nonmedical disability] factors contained in the record, there are some situations where an award of such benefits may properly be based on medical factors alone. It would serve no practical purpose for the commission to consider nonmedical factors in extreme situations where medical factors alone preclude sustained remunerative employment, since nonmedical factors will not render the claimant any more or less physically able to work." (Emphasis sic.)
In the case before us, the commission relied in part on Dr. Thomas' report which concluded that claimant's allowed medical condition prevented sustained remunerative employment. This report not only is "some evidence" supporting the commission's order but also provides a sufficient explanation, under Haygood, supra, of that order.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.