State ex rel. G F Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
| Decision Date | 17 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1350,80-1350 |
| Citation | 423 N.E.2d 99,66 Ohio St.2d 446 |
| Parties | , 20 O.O.3d 379 The STATE, ex rel. G F BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC., v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Harrington, Huxley, & Smith and Robert A. Lenga, Youngstown, for relator.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Lee M. Smith, Columbus, for respondent Industrial Commission.
John R. Workman, Columbus, for respondent Floyd Burris.
Relator contends that the commission abused its discretion in sustaining claimant's motion for permanent total disability benefits. We find this contention to be without merit.
Essentially, relator asks this court to reweigh the medical evidence. It is well established that " * * * the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion." State ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16, 278 N.E.2d 24. See, also, State, ex rel. Reed, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 200, 207 N.E.2d 755; State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47, 139 N.E.2d 41.
This court has repeatedly held that where the record contains some evidence which supports the commission's factual findings, such findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 160, 398 N.E.2d 779; State, ex rel. Republic Steel, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 193, 399 N.E.2d 1268; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 408, 406 N.E.2d 513. Examination of the record indicates that the medical opinions of Dr. Kravec and Dr. Dombczewsky constitute some evidence which support the commission's factual determinations.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Rouch v. Eagle Tool & Mach. Co., 85-1608
...N.E.2d 440; State, ex rel. Hudson, v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 169, 465 N.E.2d 1289; State, ex rel. GF Business Equip., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 446, 429 N.E.2d 99 ; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 408, 406 N.E.2d 99 ; State, ex rel.......
-
State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Stover, 86-1357
...St.2d 396, 23 O.O.3d 358, 433 N.E.2d 159; State, ex rel. Teece, v. Indus. Comm., supra; State, ex rel. GF Business Equip., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 446, 20 O.O.3d 379, 423 N.E.2d 99. A Kroger contends that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in awarding benefi......
-
State ex rel. Jeffrey v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...where the record contains some evidence in support of the commission's findings. State, ex rel. G F Business Equip., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 446, 447, 423 N.E.2d 99 , citing State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403 ; State, e......
-
State ex rel. US Tubular Prods. v. Indus. Comm'n
...findings, there has been no abuse of discretion by the commission and mandamus will not lie. State, ex rel. G F Business Equip., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 446; State, ex rel. Williams v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 240. Considering the investigator's report, the t......