Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Bowie v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1996No. 94-1208PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

We are asked to evaluate the commission’s order for “some evidence” in support of its decision. Upon review, we find it necessary to return the cause to the commission for further consideration and amended order.

This controversy centers around Dr. Katz’s report, which was prepared after the claimed period of disability had ended. Claimant asserts that a report which post-dates the period of disability can never constitute “some evidence” upon which the commission can rely. We disagree.

There are parallels between an examining doctor who offers a retroactive opinion and a doctor who renders an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wallace v. Industrlal CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Lampkins v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Hughes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Knapp v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State Ex Rel. Roxbury v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State ex rel. Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State Ex Rel. Masters v. Nationsway Transport Serv., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

5 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