State ex rel. Kokocinski v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio, 83-1476

Decision Date20 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-1476,83-1476
Citation464 N.E.2d 564,11 Ohio St.3d 186
Parties, 11 O.B.R. 499 The STATE, ex rel. KOKOCINSKI, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Wagoner, Steinberg, Chinnis & Dorf and Michael D. Dorf, Holland, for relator.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Lee M. Smith and Richard C. Slavin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent Industrial Com'n.

Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy & Durfee, James P. Triona and James M. Sciarini, Toledo, for respondent Toledo Building Services Co.

PER CURIAM.

It is well-settled 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 [58 O.O.2d 70]. Furthermore, "where the record contains some evidence to support the commission's factual findings, these findings will not be disturbed." State, ex rel. Humble v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77, 397 N.E.2d 403 [14 O.O.3d 275]. Conversely, "[w]here there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion an abuse of discretion is present and mandamus becomes appropriate." State, ex rel. Kramer v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 39, 42, 391 N.E.2d 1015 [13 O.O.3d 30].

Relator argues that the commission abused its discretion when, based upon the facts of record, it found relator not to be permanently and totally disabled. We agree.

Respondents argue that the reports of Drs. Cooke and McCloud provide evidence in support of the commission's order and that the order should therefore not be disturbed. In State, ex rel. Jennings v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 101, 102, 438 N.E.2d 420, this court held that "where a medical expert has, by deposition testimony, repudiated a conclusion previously made in a medical report, that report cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission."

Respondents contend that Dr. Cooke merely "clarified" his earlier opinion by distinguishing between the terms of "impairment" and "disability." Further, respondents argue that Dr. Cooke is not competent to draw administrative conclusions such as how much disability results from a certain amount of physical impairment.

Although the Medical Examination Manual issued by the commission on October 5, 1981 does distinguish between determinations of extent of "impairment," which are medical in nature, and determinations of extent of "disability," which are administrative in nature, it should be noted that in the instant case doctors' reports containing an opinion as to extent of relator's disability, including that submitted by Dr. McCloud in the instant case, have been referred to and relied upon. In addition, a review of the transcript of Dr. Cooke's deposition clearly bears out relator's contention that Dr. Cooke repudiated his earlier report. His report therefore cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission. State, ex rel. Jennings, v. Indus. Comm., supra. The application of the rule in Jennings, however, does not dispose of the instant case. In Jennings, "there was no evidence but the repudiated report * * * to support the order of the commission * * *." Id. at 103, 438 N.E.2d 420. In the instant case, the claimant's file also contained the report of Dr. McCloud.

Dr. McCloud, taking note of relator's lack of education and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State, ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1986
    ...on evidence which is deficient and even misleading. The instant cause is similar in this respect to State, ex rel. Kokocinski v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 186, 464 N.E.2d 564. In that case, Dr. McCloud, an examining physician, commented in his report on the claimant's lack of educa......
  • State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1994
    ...Tire & Rubber Co. (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 71, 73, 26 OBR 61, 63, 498 N.E.2d 459, 461; State ex rel. Kokocinski v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 11 OBR 499, 500-501, 464 N.E.2d 564, 566. The final SHO order in the case sub judice found that Dr. Yoder's "[office] notes plus his r......
  • State ex rel. Chapman v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 2008 Ohio 4717 (Ohio App. 9/18/2008)
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 2008
    ...11 Ohio St.3d 186, to conclude that the commission abused its discretion by denying relator's application for PTD compensation because Kokocinski is factually similar to this {¶5} "Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, ......
  • State ex rel. Kroger Co. Relator v. Wedge
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 6, 2012
    ...Gen. Motors Corp. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 110, 113, 18 OBR 143, 145, 480 N.E.2d 403, 406; [State ex rel. Kokocinski v. Indus.Comm. 11 Ohio St.3d 186] at 188-189, 11 OBR at 501, 464 N.E.2d at 566. Such opinions are of no probative value. Further, equivocation occurs when a doctor repudiates an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT