State ex rel. Cupp v. Industrial Commission

The current controversy centers on the commission’s evaluation of the nonmedical disability evidence, and whether such evaluation included consideration of the vocational report submitted by the appellee. This focus, however, obscures a more significant error — the commission’s apparent failure to consider all the claim’s allowed conditions.

The commission’s order, the statement of facts and Dr. McCloud’s report (on which the commission exclusively relied) all listed the allowed conditions as “left leg, low back, right leg.” The numerous serious conditions *130additionally allowed in 1982 are…