State ex rel. Anderson v. State of Ohio, Dept. of State Personnel, 79-188

• Decision Date: 12 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 79-188,79-188
• Citation: 14 O.O.3d 339,397 N.E.2d 1199,60 Ohio St.2d 106
• Parties: , 14 O.O.3d 339 The STATE ex rel. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of OHIO, DEPT. OF STATE PERSONNEL et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 106

60 Ohio St.2d 106

397 N.E.2d 1199, 14 O.O.3d 339

The STATE ex rel. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of OHIO, DEPT. OF STATE PERSONNEL et al., Appellees.

No. 79-188.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 12, 1979.

On March 11, 1972, John J. Anderson, the appellant, injured his back in the course of his employment with the Ohio Youth Commission while breaking up a fight. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for "lumbar discognic syndrome."

On March 27, 1974, appellant filed an Application for the Determination of the Percentage of Permanent Partial Disability with the Industrial Commission, an appellee herein. He was examined by Dr. R. J. Hansell of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation Medical Section who found that appellant suffered an eight percent permanent partial disability. Dr. Beryl Oser, appellant's treating physician, recommended that he be found 55 to 60 percent permanent partially disabled. On January 14, 1975, the commission awarded appellant 30 percent permanent partial disability.

On March 11, 1975, appellant filed a motion with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation requesting that his claim be allowed for a further condition described as "severe anxiety neurosis." Accompanying the motion was a report from Dr. Saim Giray, a psychiatrist. In his report, Dr. Giray diagnosed a "severe anxiety neurosis" and estimated a 50 percent permanent partial disability. The bureau granted the motion on April 3, 1975, finding that appellant's anxiety neurosis was the direct and proximate result of his injury on March 11, 1972. Pursuant to appellant's motion, the commission, on June 4, 1975, increased appellant's percentage of permanent partial disability to 80 percent.

On November 17, 1975, appellant filed a motion with the commission requesting that he be found permanently and totally disabled. He also submitted a report from Dr. Giray who concluded that appellant was permanently and totally disabled "(c)onsidering the severity and fixation degree of this claimant's neurosis along with his continuing physical residuals * * * ." The commission referred appellant to Dr. Thomas T. F. Tsai, also a psychiatrist. He concluded that appellant was "suffering from severe Depressive Anxiety Neurosis with much anger and hostility due to his basic aggressive personality." He recommended that appellant be found permanently and totally disabled if his physical disability was over 20 percent. The commission then referred the claim file to Dr. Lon Cordell, Ph. D., a psychologist on its medical staff, for a peer review report. Dr. Cordell did not personally examine appellant. In his report, however, he noted that Dr. Tsai specifically stated that appellant's severe depressive anxiety neurosis is due to his basic aggressive personality, but did not state that the aggressive personality is the result of his industrial injury. Dr. Cordell then noted that an aggressive personality is the result of a "lifetime development." Although not concluding whether appellant is permanently and totally disabled due to his industrial injury, Dr. Cordell recommended that the commission refer appellant to another psychiatrist for further examination. The commission scheduled another examination to be performed by Drs. Parker and Oliver on May 23, 1977. Upon the advice of counsel, appellant refused to submit to another examination.

On August 31, 1977, the commission denied appellant's motion finding from proof of record that he is not permanently and totally disabled. The commission's order stated "(t)he finding and order is based on the medical reports of Dr. R. J. Hansell, Dr. Thos. Tsai, Dr. Lon Cordell, evidence in the file and evidence adduced at the hearing."

Appellant then filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals, alleging the order of...