Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1998No. 95-1405PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Where no evidence establishes that the claimant is capable of sustained remunerative employment, the commission’s denial of PTD represents .an abuse of discretion, and a writ of mandamus must issue to correct the abuse. State ex rel. Yancey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 367, 673 N.E.2d 1374. Here, the parties do not dispute the evidence that shows Hartness’s permanent, but only partial impairment, which Dr. Meyn assessed as a “31% whole man impairment” and Dr. Lim assessed at “45% * * * based on the body as a whole.” Instead, they argue over whether the commission…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Gay v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State ex rel. Yancey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Frazier v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State ex rel. Roy v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Frazier v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State ex rel. Hartness v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API