State ex rel. Brady v. Industrial Commission

For the reasons to follow we affirm the denial of the writ of mandamus.

Only where the record is devoid of some evidence to support the commission’s order will an abuse of discretion exist. State, ex. rel. Elliott, v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 76, 79; State, ex rel. Hutton, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 9, 13 [58 O.O.2d 66].

Appellant presents two theories for recovery. The first is that an examining doctor must present an opinion on whether the claimant can perform remunerative employment or the doctor’s testimony is not “evi*242dence.” The second theory avers that the…