State ex rel. Hall v. Indus. Comm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. Hall, Appellee, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 2 Appellant. 3 [Cite as State ex rel. Hall v. Indus. Comm. (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 4 Workers compensation -- Industrial Commission does not abuse its 5 discretion in basing a permanent partial disability award solely 6 on 7 demonstrable. 8 (No. 95-619 -- Submitted June 5, 1996 -- Decided July 3, 1996.) 9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10 11 medical and clinical findings that are reasonably 94APD01-45. Appellee-claimant, Dorothy Hall, was injured in 1987 while in the 12 course of and arising from her employment with Packard Electric. Her 13 workers compensation claim was allowed for thoracic, lumbar and left 14 shoulder sprain and strain. Five years later, she moved the Bureau of 15 Workers Compensation for permanent partial disability compensation. 16 Bureau specialist Dr. Mark E. Weaver examined claimant and 17 assessed a twenty-five percent permanent partial impairment. Dr. E.A. 18 DeChellis examined claimant per the employer s request and reported a 19 sixteen percent permanent partial impairment. Subsequently, Dr. Edward J. 1 Urban, on behest of the claimant, found a forty-two percent impairment. 2 Claimant also filed a report from vocational consultant John Ruth, who 3 found a one hundred percent impairment. 4 A district hearing officer for appellant, Industrial Commission of 5 Ohio, awarded twenty-seven percent permanent partial disability based 6 upon the report of Drs. Weaver [and] Urban as well as a consideration of the 7 claimant s nonmedical disability factors. The order was affirmed by the 8 commission. 9 Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 10 Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in 11 finding only a twenty-seven percent permanent partial disability. The court 12 of appeals found that the commission did not properly consider claimant s 13 nonmedical disability factors and returned the cause for further 14 consideration and amended order. 15 This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 16 _____________________ 17 Weiner & Suit Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Newendorp, for appellee. 2 1 2 Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Diane M. Meftah, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. 3 ___________________ 4 Per Curiam. On authority of State ex rel. Holman v. Longfellow 5 Restaurant. (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d ____, ____N.E.2d ____, the judgment 6 of the court of appeals is hereby reversed. 7 Judgment reversed. 8 MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 9 DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 10 11 RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 12 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
