State ex rel. Zamora v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio, 87-993

Decision Date16 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-993,87-993
Citation543 N.E.2d 87,45 Ohio St.3d 17
PartiesThe STATE, ex rel. ZAMORA, Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, Appellant, et al.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Gallon, Kalniz & Iorio Co., L.P.A., and William R. Menacher, Toledo, for appellee.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Helen M. Ninos and Donald R. Ford, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.


The commission based its denial of permanent total disability compensation particularly on the reports of Dr. Brown and Dr. Kogut. The court of appeals rejected Dr. Brown's report as "some evidence" to support the commission's decision because it did not evaluate the combined effect of Zamora's physical and psychiatric conditions, as required by State, ex rel. Anderson, v. Indus. Comm., supra. It rejected Dr. Kogut's report for the same reason and because " * * * his opinion was, at least in part, rejected when the psychiatric condition was recognized by the Industrial Commission." Before this court, the commission points out that State, ex rel. Burley, v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, has overruled Anderson and the combined-effects doctrine. Thus, the commission argues, the Brown and Kogut reports constitute some evidence to support its finding against permanent total disability with regard to Zamora's physical and mental impairments. We agree that, with the Anderson impediment removed, the Brown report constitutes some evidence of the lack of a permanent and total physical impairment. However, we agree with the court of appeals that the Kogut report, even with the Anderson impediment removed, cannot constitute some evidence against mental impairment.

The Kogut report was available to the regional board of review before it allowed the amendment to the claim adding the psychiatric condition. Dr. Kogut concluded that Zamora suffered from moderate impairment from depression, that the depression preceded his 1963 physical injury, and that the contribution of the 1963 injury to his current depression was minimal. The regional board implicitly rejected this report when it allowed the claim expressly on the Mann letter of November 8, 1984, which also found a moderate depression, but concluded that Zamora was permanently and totally disabled. We agree with the court of appeals that it would be inconsistent to permit the commission to reject the Kogut report at one level, for whatever reason, and rely on it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1994 Part I of the majority's opinion (and paragraph one of the syllabus) because I believe our decision in State ex rel. Zamora v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 17, 543 N.E.2d 87, precludes the commission from relying on the C-174 forms as the basis for its conclusion that Baker certifi......
  • State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1998
    ...improper, "as medical evidence once rejected cannot be later cited in support of an application," citing State ex rel. Zamora v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 17, 543 N.E.2d 87. In a related argument, Kroger asserts that "the District Order of May 18, 1992, does not comply with" State ......
  • State ex rel. Brahler v. Kent State Univ.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2013
    ...both reports when it previously granted her motion seeking additional psychological treatment, inviolation of State ex rel. Zamora v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 17 (1989) (it is inconsistent for the commission to reject a medical report at one level, for whatever reason, and rely on it at ......
  • State ex rel. Richko v. Equity Residential Properties Mgt. Corp., 2006 Ohio 4979 (Ohio App. 9/26/2006)
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 2006
    ...he had not previously examined, the October 8, 2004 addendum was not subject to the prohibition under State ex rel. Zamora v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 17, 543 N.E.2d 87. {¶6} In response, the commission argues, essentially, that relator's attempt to discredit Dr. Randolph's addend......
  • 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