State ex rel. Cassity v. Montgomery County Dept. of Sanitation
Decision Date | 21 February 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 88-1396,88-1396 |
Citation | 49 Ohio St.3d 47,550 N.E.2d 474 |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, ex rel. CASSITY, Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION et al., Appellees. |
Michael J. Muldoon, Columbus, for appellant.
Lee C. Falke, Pros. Atty., and John F. Krumholtz, for appellee Montgomery County Dept. of Sanitation.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Dennis L. Hufstader, Columbus, for appellee Indus. Com'n.
In the case at bar, the commission denied compensation for temporary total disability. Per State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, this decision must be supported by "some evidence." Our review reveals "some evidence" supporting the denial.
In State, ex rel. Ramirez, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O.3d 518, 433 N.E.2d 586, we held that permanent disability precludes receipt of temporary total compensation. In February 1982, Dr. Pavlatos concluded that appellant had a "poor prognosis for any improvement." We find that this assessment comports with the definition of "permanency" set forth in Vulcan Materials Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 31, 25 OBR 26, 494 N.E.2d 1125. There is thus "some evidence" supporting denial of compensation for temporary total disability.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
...not lie where the record contains some evidence to support the commission's findings. State ex rel. Cassity v. Montgomery Cty. Dept. of Sanitation (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 47, 48, 550 N.E.2d 474, 475, citing State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.......
- State v. Jones
-
State v. Leann Hayley
... ... Mason, Cuyahoga County ... Prosecutor, Eleanore Hilow, Assistant ... ...
-
State ex rel. Matlack, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
...(1990), 35 Ohio St.3d 189, 519 N.E.2d 650 ("maximum recovery after this period of time"); State ex rel. Cassity v. Montgomery Cty. Dept. of Sanitation (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 47, 550 N.E.2d 474 (claimant has "poor prognosis for any improvement"). Other courts have considered similar statement......